Early Church Fathers and the Trinity — A Pre-Constantinople Study

In the following topic, God willing, we will present a study of the beliefs of the early fathers before the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. The aim of this study is to prove that these fathers did not know the doctrine of the Trinity, and if they knew the Trinity, they did not know it in its current form.

We will discuss the sayings of the following fathers, God willing, in order to understand their beliefs: Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Macedonius, Basil, Arius and his followers, as well as the book The Shepherd of Hermas — and God is the helper and on Him we rely.

---

Ignatius of Antioch

Who Is Ignatius of Antioch?

Quoted from http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A5%D8%BA%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%B3

Ignatius, nicknamed the Illuminator or the Antiochian, who is also called Theophorus (in Greek: Θεοφόρος, meaning God-bearer), is a saint and one of the Church Fathers. He was most likely one of the disciples of the apostles Peter and John. He is the third bishop or patriarch of Antioch after Peter and Evodius, who died around 68 AD. The father of church history, Eusebius of Caesarea, mentioned that Ignatius succeeded Evodius in a way that made his apostolic line closer. He mentioned that Peter himself appointed him to the See of Antioch.

Ignatius is generally considered one of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e. the first official group of Church Fathers) and is recognized as a saint by all Apostolic Churches. The Western Catholic Church commemorates him on October 17, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, along with the Eastern Catholic Churches, commemorates him on December 20.

Ignatius’ philosophy of life was to live his life in imitation of Christ. Ignatius was arrested by the Roman authorities and sent to Rome under extremely harsh conditions of detention: “From Syria to Rome I fought against savage monsters, on land and in the sea, by night and by day, obliged to remain among ten leopards, and in the company of soldiers who grew worse and more rude the more they tried to show kindness” (Letter to the Romans 5).

He died a martyr in the capital of the empire, where he was thrown into a Roman theater to be devoured by lions during the reign of Emperor Trajan. The authorities intended to make him an example to other Christians so that they would fear and stop spreading their beliefs.

That Ignatius of Antioch denounced that Christ is God over all and considered the saying that Christ is God over all heresy. Let us see what Ignatius of Antioch said about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He confirmed that they are three and never indicated that they are one.

It came in his letter known as the Epistle to the Philippians at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm

Translation: There is only one God and Father, not two or three, only one and there is no other beside Him, the only true God. The Lord our God, as the Bible says, is one Lord (Deuteronomy 4:6 — Mark 29:12). And also, did not one God create us? Do we not all have one Father? (Malachi 10:2). And also, there is one Son, God the Word. The only begotten Son of the Father, as the Bible says, who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). And also, one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:8). And in another place: What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, that we may know Him? (Proverbs 4:30). And also, there is one Paraclete. And as the Bible says, there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), for we have been called to the hope of our calling (1 Corinthians 13:12). Therefore, there are not three fathers, nor three sons, nor three Paracletes. There is one Father, one Son, and one Paraclete. Therefore, when the Lord sent the apostles to teach all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), it was not one name that had three names, nor three who were all incarnate, but three who were equal in dignity.

It is worth noting that Ignatius believed that the Father is greater than the Son and that the Son is subject to the Father, which contradicts the current doctrine of the Trinity.

From the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians we read the following:

Translation: And also how does Christ not appear to you as born of a virgin, but appears to you as God, the Almighty, the All-Powerful? Say then, who sent Him? Who was His Lord and Master? To whose will was He obedient? What laws did He fulfill, if He was not subject to anyone’s will or power?

---

Polycarp of Smyrna

Who Is Polycarp?

http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_616.html

Saint Anba Polycarp, the Martyr — Bishop of Smyrna (Izmir)

Saint Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna or the martyr Polycarp, was born around 70 AD. It is said that a pious lady named Callisto was visited by an angel in a dream, who said: “Callisto, wake up and go to the gate of the Ephesians. After a short walk you will meet two men with a little boy named Polycarp. Ask them if this boy is for sale. When they answer yes, pay them the price they ask, and take the boy and keep him with you…” Callisto obeyed, and acquired the boy, who later became the keeper of her storehouses. When she traveled on some errand, the poor and widows gathered around him, and he distributed generously until all the storehouses were empty. When Callisto returned, his fellow servant told her what he had done. She summoned him and asked him for the keys to the storerooms. When she opened them, she found them full as they were. She ordered the informer to be punished, but Polycarp intervened and told her that what his fellow servant had said was true, that the storerooms had been emptied, and that this good was a gift from God. She rejoiced and adopted him to inherit all her possessions after her death. As for him, material things did not occupy his heart. Among his other deeds was that he would go to the road from which the wood carriers returned and choose the oldest of them to buy wood from him and carry it himself to a poor widow.

Bucolus ordained him a deacon. He preached by preaching as well as by his good example. Since he was popular and successful, he ordained him a priest while he was still young. Saint John the Beloved ordained him Bishop of Smyrna (Rev. 2:8-10), which is also historically called “Izmir.” St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, testified to the holiness of his life (he was his teacher), and that he learned at the hands of the apostles, and that he spoke with St. John and others who saw the Lord Christ on earth. He also struggled in his resistance to heretics, especially Marcion, the most prominent Gnostic figure, and during his stay in Rome in 154 AD, he saved many from error and turned them back from their following of Marcion.

But the question now is, what is the doctrine of Polycarp according to his writings? And did Polycarp know the Trinity? Polycarp believed that the Father is the God and Father of Christ, and as long as Polycarp believed that the Father is the God of Christ, he naturally does not believe that Christ is God and does not believe in the Trinity.

Let us read what Polycarp wrote in his Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 12, at the following link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-roberts.html

Translation: May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, who is the Son of God and our High Priest forever, strengthen you in doctrine and truth, and in all righteousness, and patience, and suffering, and purity, and may he grant you a portion and a share with his saints, and may he grant us a portion with you and with all those who are under heaven and believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and his Father who raised him from the dead.

---

Clement of Rome

Who Is Saint Clement of Rome?

Quoted from http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_174.html

Saint Clement of Rome, Bishop of Rome

Saint Clement of Rome is described by St. Irenaeus, a man of the second century: “He saw the blessed apostles and talked with them, their preaching was still resounding in his ears, and their tradition was before his eyes.” Opinions differed about his person, as some see him as one of the apostle Paul’s assistants in the service (Phil. 4:3), and some see him as the consul Flavius Clemens, a member of the royal family, the grandson of Emperor Vespasian and cousin of Emperor Domitian, and some see him as just a relative of the consul, or a Jewish slave of his who freed him and bore his name.

In any case, he is considered the third bishop of Rome after Linus and Anacletus, he was ordained bishop in the twelfth year of the reign of Domitian, and died in the third year of the reign of Trajan. Some believe that the Santo Council in Rome could not bear to see among them a nobleman who had become a Christian bishop, attracting the nobles to Christianity, so they met, invited him, and advised him to abandon his Christianity. When he refused, they presented a report about him to Trajan, who ordered his exile to the Crimean Peninsula and assigned him to cut stones. There in exile, he met about two thousand exiled Christians and was a caring father to them. When they were in need of water, he met with some believers and began to pray, so the Lord guided him to a rock with a spring of water from which they could draw water.

Many pagans believed at his hands, and the exile became a center of worship and preaching, which filled the governors with anger, so they put an anchor around his neck and threw him into the sea, where he drowned in the year 101 AD (29 Hathor). It was said that his body remained in the sea for a whole year without decay until the Lord revealed it.

His message to the Corinthians had its weight, and is read in the churches. It bears the stamp of his friend, our teacher Paul the Apostle, and his way of thinking. It is considered the first of the patristic writings that occupied a special place in the Church.

Now let us see if Clement of Rome knew anything about the Trinity or not? The surprise is that Clement of Rome believed the following: First, that Christ was sent by God and that God sent Christ just as Christ sent the twelve apostles. Second, that the Father is God alone and that Christ is His servant.

Let us read what Clement of Rome says. It came in his first letter to the Corinthians — THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS — in chapter 42:

Translation: The apostles received the Gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ and our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God. Christ was sent by God and the apostles were sent by Christ and both were done in order according to God’s will.

It is clear, of course, according to the previous words of Clement of Rome that he believes that Christ was sent by God and that he is the Messenger of God and does not believe that Christ is God himself, of course. Christ received the Gospel from God and God sent him, so he is not God in any way.

The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the words of Clement of Rome about Christ being sent by God and the apostles being sent by Christ have raised a lot of discussion and controversy.

We read from the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm — which is a link from the Catholic Encyclopedia that talks about Clement of Rome under the title Doctrine:

Clement of Rome also says in the same letter on the same link http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html in chapter 59, verse 4:

Translation: So that all nations may know that you alone are God and Jesus Christ is your Son.

It is worth noting that the same text is translated on the Wikipedia website in another way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism

Translation: Let everyone know that you (the Father) are God alone and that Jesus Christ is your servant.

Glory be to God! The same pure Islamic belief: There is no god but God (the Father) and Christ is the servant and messenger of God.

The παισ vs. υιου Question

To clarify, what is the reason for the difference in translation between “your son” and “your slave”? Which is more correct?

We say initially that there are two words in the Greek language, one word meaning slave, child, or son, which is παισ and is pronounced pais. By looking at Strong’s dictionary, we find its meaning:

It is clear from the above that the word has a meaning ranging between slave, child, and son.

It is worth noting that Clement the Roman used the same word in the same letter, meaning slave, to describe Moses, peace be upon him, in Chapter 51:

Translation: It is better for a person to confess his sins so that his heart does not harden as the hearts of those who caused discord against Moses, the servant of God, hardened, and their condemnation was clear.

The same word here, when it came with Moses, peace be upon him, they translated it as slave, and when it came with Christ, we find some translators translating it as slave, and some of them are embarrassed to describe Christ as a slave, so they translate it as son.

There is another word that means nothing but son, which is υιου and is pronounced huios. By searching for it in Strong’s dictionary, we find the following:

It is clear from the above that the word means son and offspring and is used to mean son of God and son of man, which are titles of Christ.

The word that is always translated as Son of God is υιου. If Clement of Rome wanted to say “so that all nations may know that you alone are God and that Jesus Christ is your Son,” he would have used it. However, he used another word, παισ, which means slave, child, or son. He used it to describe Moses, peace be upon him, in the same letter as a slave of God, which proves that he meant “so that all nations may know that you alone are God and that Jesus Christ is your slave.”

To give examples of the use of the two words, we begin with υιου, which can only be translated as son. We find it, for example, in Matthew 28:19. All translations translate it as “baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” It is impossible to find a translation that translates it as “baptize them in the name of the Father, the Servant, and the Holy Spirit.”

We come to an example of the use of the word παισ. We read from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 12, Verses 17 and 18. We read it from the ERV-AR translation: “Behold my servant whom I have chosen.” We read it from the Life Translation: “Behold my servant whom I have chosen.” And as we see, some translations have translated it as “my servant,” while others have resorted to translating it as “my young man,” out of embarrassment at describing Christ as the servant of the Lord, which contradicts the Christian doctrine based on the divinity of Christ. And because the Greek word can be translated as “my child” or “my son,” and the word “my young man” is not far from them.

And of course, to make sure that what is meant is “my servant,” we only have to go back to the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 42, to read the prophecy: “Behold my servant whom I will exalt, my chosen one in whom my soul rejoices.” Certainly, the word “my youth” is nothing but a manipulation of translations to obscure the servitude of Christ to God Almighty in the Holy Bible.

---

The Didache

What Is the Didache Gospel?

http://st-takla.org/Coptic-Faith-Creed-Dogma/Coptic-Rite-n-Ritual-Taks-Al-Kanisa/Dictionary-of-Coptic-Ritual-Terms/3-Coptic-Terminology_Hah-Khah-Dal-Thal/Didakhy__Didach.html

We saw that the Didache is one of the oldest church documents and that it expresses the doctrines of the early church. Did the Gospel of the Didache know the Trinity or did it know the servitude of Christ to God, the Lord of the worlds? We read the texts and let them speak.

We read the texts of the Didache from Robert Donaldson’s English at the following link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

We read from Chapter 9:

Translation: Chapter Nine: 1- Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks thus. 2- First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant, to you be glory forever. 3- Regarding the breaking of bread: We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge that you have shown us through your servant Jesus, to you be glory forever.

We read from Chapter 10:

Translation: Chapter 10: 1- After you are filled, give thanks thus. 2- We thank you, O Holy Father, for your holy name which you have made dwell in our hearts. And for the knowledge, faith, and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant, glory be to you forever. 3- O Lord Almighty, you created all things for your name’s sake. You gave people food and drink to enjoy so that they might thank you. As for us, you have given us spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through your servant. 4- We thank you before all things; because you are able; glory be to you forever.

The παισ Translation Debate

We said before that the Greek word that translates to slave is παισ or pias, which means servant, child, son, or specifically young son. Therefore, we are not surprised when we find Arabic translations of the Didache using the word “your child” instead of “your slave,” and we are not surprised either when we find other English translations using the word “your child” or “your son” instead of “your servant.”

Perhaps Christians would say that we choose the translations that we like and ignore the translations that we do not like in order to prove that the early church believed that Christ was the servant of God. So be it — we will assume that the correct translation is “your son” and not “your servant.”

Let us read chapter nine again:

“First, regarding the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus, your servant. Glory to you forever.”

Now let us replace the word “your servant” with “your son”:

“First, regarding the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son, which you made known to us through Jesus your son, to you be glory forever.”

We now have Jesus the Son of God and David the Son of God And indeed the translation is found in this form in many translations of the Didache, including the translation with comments by Ben Soet.

Translation with comments by Ben H. Swett on the following link: http://bswett.com/1998-01Didache.html

We actually read the text from it:

Indeed, his comment on that sentence in the Didache is truly remarkable. He says literally:

Translation: The direct comparison of your son David with your son Jesus is certainly a very early doctrine, predating the doctrine that Jesus is the only Son of God and the doctrine laid down by Athanasius in 318 AD that Christ is God incarnate. This may be one reason why Athanasius did not include the Didache in the canon when he completed his list of the New Testament canons in 367 AD.

There is no doubt that since the sonship of David, peace be upon him, to God in the view of Christians is a metaphorical sonship in the sense of selection and high status and position, and since the sonship of David, peace be upon him, is directly compared to the sonship of Christ, peace be upon him, then there is no doubt that the sonship of Christ, according to the writers of the Didache in the early church, meant selection and choice and did not take him out of the framework of servitude to God Almighty if we accept that the word “your son” is the correct translation. If we do not accept that translation, then the correct translation will be “your servant,” which testifies to the belief of the early Christians in the servitude of Christ to God Almighty. We leave the choice to the Christians.

The Baptismal Formula in Didache 7

And so that we have finished discussing the Didache in detail, and so that Christians do not say that we read what we like and leave what we do not like, let us read the seventh chapter of the Didache from one of the Arabic translations:

Christians may say that the presence of the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” in the Didache is evidence of the early church’s belief in the Trinity. In response, we say:

We return again to Ben H. Swett and see what he says in his comments on chapter seven:

Translation: The formula of the Trinity “in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” appears only once in the New Testament (Matthew 28:19). It is probably a late addition in both the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew, since the Trinity was not defined until AD 362. Perhaps the original reading was “in the name of the Lord.” See Didache 9:5.

Let us read Didache 9:5 to see why some scholars think that “in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a later addition and that the original reading is “in the name of the Lord”:

That is, the Didache itself testifies that baptism was in the name of the Lord or Master (i.e., Christ) and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In general, whether the text is an addition or not, it does not prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all gods, nor that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three hypostases of the one God. The Didache also states that Christ is a servant of God or that he is a son of God, just as David, peace be upon him, was a son of God, meaning chosen by God.

---

The Shepherd of Hermas

In the upcoming interventions, God willing, we will discuss a book that was known to the early church and considered by some Christian clerics to be an inspired book in the first centuries of Christianity, which is the book of the Shepherd of Hermas.

The strange thing is that the book of the Shepherd of Hermas, despite being viewed as divine revelation in some early Christian circles, contained a doctrine that completely contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity, which is what is known as the doctrine of adoption, which is a doctrine that views Christ as a righteous human being chosen by God, and when he was baptized in the Jordan River, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, which is the divine element — according to their doctrine — in Christ. That is, Christ, according to the adoptionists, is a creature, but God chose him and gave him the degree of divinity by the descent of the Holy Spirit in him.

We will discuss, God willing, the following points:

• First: Definition of the book of the Shepherd of Hermas
• Second: The legality of the book of the Shepherd of Hermas
• Third: What is the doctrine of the adoptionists?
• Fourth: The Christian references’ recognition of the existence of a corrupt doctrine in the book of the Shepherd of Hermas
• Fifth: Texts from the book of the Shepherd

What Is the Shepherd of Hermas?

Quoted from the Arab Christian Encyclopedia: http://www.christusrex.net/www1/ofm/1god/scrittiarcaici/pastoredierma.htm

The Canonicity of the Shepherd of Hermas

Just to clarify, the word “legality” (canonicity) of a certain book means whether Christians consider it a divine revelation or not.

The important thing is that we return to the book of the Shepherd of Hermas to prove from Christian references that it was legal in some Christian circles.

We read from the sources of church rituals: The Didache (Teachings of the Apostles), Dar Nubar, p. 57:

Under the title of The Shepherd of Hermas: “It is the most widely circulated of the books of the Apostolic Fathers that have reached us, and the book belongs in its subject to the style of vision, and it occupied a prestigious position in the first centuries of Christianity, and was elevated by some fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen to the level of the dignity of the divine books.”

We read from other Christian sources:

References:

1. Adelbert Hamann, A Guide to Reading the Church Fathers, First Edition (Beirut: Dar Al-Mashreq, 2002, p. 12)
2. Bishop Kyrollos Bustros, History of Christian Thought among the Church Fathers, First Edition (Beirut: Al-Boulisiya Library, 2001, p. 78)
3. Translated by George Nassour, The Oldest Christian Texts (Beirut: Theological Studies Association, Kaslik, 1975, p. 80)
4. Monastery of Saint Anba Macarius, A General Idea about the Holy Bible, First Edition (Cairo: Dar Majallat Markos, 2003, p. 72)

What Is the Doctrine of Adoptionism?

We read from Wikipedia from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

Translation: Sonship, sometimes known as dynamic monotheism, is a minority Christian doctrine that believes that Jesus was adopted by God as his son at his baptism. According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites believed that Jesus was chosen because of his absolute, sinless submission to the will of God. Sonship was declared a heresy at the end of the second century and was rejected by the First Council of Nicaea, which maintained the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, defining Jesus as eternally begotten of God. In short, Adoptionism says that Christ was born as a man and did not have an eternal existence, but that God adopted him at his baptism and he became God and the Son of God.

Texts from the Shepherd of Hermas

We will now look, God willing, at the texts that contradict the doctrine of the Trinity in the book The Shepherd. We find the book at the following link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html

We read from the fifth parable:

Then we read the interpretation of the proverb:

It is clear that the writer of this parable embraces the doctrine of the Sons in Christ. He looks at Christ as a righteous servant chosen by God and sees that the son is the Holy Spirit and that Christ, due to his goodness and righteousness, the Holy Spirit dwelt in him, so Christ became a partner with the Son of God. At the same time, he does not deny the divinity of Christ. He sees that everything was delivered to him from the Father. But it is clear that he is calling for the idea that Christ acquired divinity by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in him.

We read from the ninth parable:

Translation: After I wrote all the examples and commands of the shepherd, the angel of repentance came and said to me: I want to show you all the things that the Holy Spirit showed you, who spoke to you in the image of the church. That Spirit is the Son of God.

Here we find that the writer believes that the Holy Spirit is the Son of God. And in the fifth example we find him saying that Christ the servant became a partner of the Holy Spirit and an heir with him, and the Spirit dwelt in him. Which indicates that the writer believed that the Holy Spirit is the divine element in Christ, and he therefore embraces the doctrine of sonship and not the doctrine of the Trinity.

Christian Sources Acknowledge the Corrupt Doctrine

The above is, of course, a dangerous admission. To say that the confusion between the Holy Spirit and the Son of God was common in an era of early Christianity indicates the lack of clarity in the doctrines of the Christian religion and that arriving at the doctrine of the Trinity in its current form took ages and centuries.

Wikipedia says in a topic about the book The Shepherd of Hermas at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_of_Hermas

Here is Wikipedia as a neutral source that acknowledges that the book of the Shepherd refers to the doctrine of adoption that was present in Christian circles in the second century.

---

Theophilus of Antioch

Who Is Theophilus of Antioch?

Quoted from: http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_737.html

According to Eusebius, this father was the sixth bishop of Antioch in Syria, and a man of the second century (late century). He was born near the Euphrates River to pagan parents, and was educated in Hellenistic (Greek) culture. As he studied the Bible, he realized that the Holy Spirit had given the prophets prophecies of future things, so he believed and obeyed God. He is one of the Christian apologists. All that remains of his writings is his defense in three books addressed to his pagan friend Autolycus, in which he aimed to present the Christian thought about God and creation before the pagan world with its false myths. Among his lost writings are articles against Marcion and Hermogenes.

Among his words: “God cannot be seen except by those who are able to see Him, when the eyes of their soul are open. When there is dirt on a mirror, a man cannot see His face in it, so he who has sin in him cannot see God.” And: “Truly, I honor the emperor, not by worshipping him, but by praying for him.”

It is worth noting that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the word Trinity, but his Trinity was not like the Trinity that currently exists in Christianity. The Trinity in the Christian religion today is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As for Theophilus of Antioch’s Trinity, it was God and His Word, that is, the Son, and His Wisdom. The text of Theophilus of Antioch’s words is:

Source: Theophilus, Apologia ad Autolycum, Book II, Chapter 15

Translation: Similarly, the three days that preceded the creation of the two lights (the sun and the moon) are considered types of trinities, such as the trinity of God, His Word, and His Wisdom.

Commentary: Theophilus of Antioch believes that the three days that preceded the creation of the sun and the moon refer to the trinity of God and His Word, i.e. the Son or Christ, and His Wisdom.

We read from the book of the Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy at the link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_12-Magma3-El-Kostantineya-Inro-03-Al-Rooh-Al-Kodos-Fi-Ta3aleem-El-Abaa.html

We notice that the writer here resorts to words closer to wishful thinking to reach the conclusion that Theophilus meant the Holy Spirit by wisdom!!! In general, where did Theophilus get the word wisdom to include it in the Trinity? He got it from the Old Testament, from the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 8.

We read from the beginning of the chapter:

Of course, it is clear that the entire chapter is metaphorical in the words of wisdom, and what preceded indicates that God Almighty is wise, but unfortunately the Christians claimed that what is meant by wisdom is Christ!!!

We read from the interpretation of Father Antonious Fikry for the previous chapter:

We read from the commentary of Father Tadros Yacoub Malti:

Wikipedia says in a topic about Theophilus of Antioch at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch

In the above discussion we find evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity arose under the influence of Greek philosophy, Platonism and Jewish heretics.

There is another point in which Theophilus of Antioch differed from the current Christian doctrine. His teachings tended towards subordination, i.e. the son’s subordination to the father and his submission to him, and that the father is greater than the son, which contradicts the absolute equality between the hypostases in the current Christian doctrine.

---

Origen

Who Is Origen?

The answer can be found on the following link: http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_363.html

The Scholar Origen (Origen Adamantius)

English: Origen Adamantius — Greek: Ὠριγένης. His personality remains puzzling, although some scholars such as Quastin and others testify to his effective role in the interest of the Bible, and he was influenced by even his opponents, but the Coptic Church, feeling the danger of his teachings, excommunicated him during his lifetime, while the Chalcedonian churches excommunicated him in the persons of his followers in 553 AD, because of what was found in their writings about the existence of the soul before the body, and that all rational creation, even demons, will be saved, etc. The scholar Origen was given the title “Adamantius,” meaning “man of steel” ἀδάμας, in reference to the irresistible strength of his argument and his perseverance.

Origen is considered a native son of Egypt, and it seems that he was born in Alexandria around 185 AD.

It is true that the Coptic Church excommunicated him during his lifetime because of his ideas that demons would be saved, but in the end he was a Christian cleric and it is okay to see his belief in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

We read from Origen’s interpretation of the opening of the Gospel of John at the following link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john2.html

We read under the title: “How the Word is the maker of all things, and even the Holy Spirit was made through Him.”

It is truly amazing that what Origen said is the same as what Macedonius said about a century and a half later, as we will see later, God willing, which is that the Holy Spirit is created. The strange thing is that when Macedonius said that the Holy Spirit is created, an ecumenical council was held in Constantinople in 381 AD, which ended with Macedonius being considered a heretic and the adoption of the Trinity as the official doctrine of Christianity.

Origen on the Nature of Christ

And now let us also learn about Origen’s sayings about Christ to see whether they agree or contradict the current doctrine of the Trinity?

Let us see Origen’s sayings in his commentary on the Gospel of John:

Source: Origen, Commentary On John, book 2.2, in Roberts & Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1979 edition) p. 323. You can review: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/06/trinity-and-development-of-doctrine.html. You can also read the previous words of Origen at the following link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john2.html

Translation: He (John) uses the definite article when the name God or God expresses the uncreated cause of all things and does not use the definite article when calling the Word God. God on the one hand is the absolute God (God), so the Savior says in his prayer “that they may know you, the only true God,” and everything that is not the absolute God (God) becomes God by participating in his divinity, and is not called simply God or God with the definite article but God without the definite article. Therefore, the firstborn of all creation (meaning Christ) is the first to be with God and the first to acquire divinity, glorified to a greater degree than all other gods beside him. The true God is God and those who came after him are gods, they are his image, he is the original.

Origen’s comment here explains the opening of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Of course, Origen’s interpretation confirms reading the opening of the Gospel of John in this way, which is the same reading of Jehovah’s Witnesses, while most Christians read it “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Origen confirms that God or God with the definite article is only used for the Father, while Christ is only God without the definite article.

Dr. Asad Rustum, the historian of the Antiochian See, comments on Origen’s faith, saying in The Church Fathers, the Antiochian historian, page 131:

The book of the Church Fathers by Dr. Asad Rustum, the Antiochian historian, page 131.

Although Origen believed that Christ was a God born or emanated from God, he saw that the Father is greater than him and the Holy Spirit to the same extent that the Son and the Holy Spirit are greater than the rest of creation. He did not believe in the absolute equality between the hypostases that Christians believe in today.

Also, Origen saw that prayer is directed only to God the Father, and he cites as evidence that Christ himself prayed to God Almighty. We read Origen’s words:

Source: Origen, Prayer, chapter 15.1-2, Ancient Christian Writers volume 19 (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1954) pp. 57-58. See also: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/06/trinity-and-development-of-doctrine.html

Translation: If we knew what prayer is, we would know that we ought not to pray to any created thing — even Christ — but only to God and the Father of all things, even our Savior Himself prayed to Him, as we said before, and He (Christ) teaches us to pray to Him (God the Father). If the Son, as He appears in other places, is separate from the Father in person and nature, we ought to pray either to the Son and not to the Father, or to both of them, or to the Father only. It remains for us, therefore, to pray to God alone, the Father of all things, but not in separation from the High Priest appointed by the Father (Christ). The saints in their prayers of thanksgiving to God offer thanks to Him through Christ Jesus.

---

Tertullian

Who Is Tertullian?

Quoting from the Dictionary of Church Fathers and Saints: http://popekirillos.net/ar/fathersdictionary/read.php?id=694

Tertullian the Scholar

Quintus Septimius Floren Tertullianus, a priest of Carthage, is considered the father of theology in the Latin Church, in terms of his contribution to the development of theological terminology, and one of the first Christian apologists. He was born in Carthage, Africa, about 160 AD, in a frivolous and corrupt pagan atmosphere. His father was the commander of a Roman legion in Africa, and was called “Proconsula Centurion.” He lived a corrupt life, which he confessed when he became a Christian, saying: “Truly I know that the same body with which I committed adultery is now making every effort to preserve chastity.” He practiced violent sports in the theaters (his Apology 15:5), and other things he did that he did not want to mention, saying: “I would rather not speak of them, so as not to revive their memory in me.” He acquired a high level of Latin and Greek education, and his writings show a great knowledge of history, philosophy, poetry, ancient literature, judicial terminology, and all the arts of advocacy. After devoting his life to the study of law, he practiced law, and later became a professor of rhetoric in his country. While he was immersed in physical pleasures and a life of luxury, his heart was drawn to the holy life of Christians and the steadfastness of their martyrs and their endurance of pain with patience and joy, so he embraced Christianity when he was thirty years old. All the energies of his knowledge, abilities and eloquence were turned to the service of the Church, and he began to argue with all its opponents, pagans, Jews and heretics, with great zeal. Unfortunately, between the years 202 and 205 AD, he fell into the heresy of Montanism, as Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete promised in the Gospel; we do not know whether he returned to the universal Church again before his death or not. St. Jerome believes that he was ordained a priest before his fall into Montanism, although some scholars believe that he remained a layman (of the people). Some believe that he died around 225 AD, and others that he lived until around 240 AD.

In the book Martyrdom in the Thought of the Fathers by Father Athanasius Fahmy George, we find what expresses Tertullian’s status in Christian thought. Link: http://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Coptic-Books/FreeCopticBooks-018-Father-Athanasius-Fahmy-George/003-El-Esteshhad/Martyrdom-in-the-Patristic-Thgought__056-Tertelianos.html

We saw that Tertullian was a person who converted from paganism to Christianity and became one of its most ardent defenders, then fell into the Montanist heresy and believed that Montanus was the Paraclete or the Comforter promised in the Gospel.

We read from Wikipedia at the following link: http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86

Here is Tertullian’s explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity in his famous work Against Praxeas: http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_on_the_trinity.htm

Translation: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three, not in state but in degree, not in matter but in form, not in power but in appearance, but they are one in state, matter, and power. Just as He is one God, but three degrees, forms, and appearances are known from Him under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Here are pictures of Christian references that proudly attribute to Tertullian the invention of the word Trinity:

Bible Dictionary — A Selection of Scholars and Theologians, Page 232. http://popekirillos.net/ar/bible/dictionary/read.php?id=4318

Also, the Encyclopedia of the Bible says the same thing: “And the Church was guided in all situations by the formula of baptism (Matthew 28:19), and made it the basis of the ‘Creed.’ Tertullian had the greatest influence — through the power of his dialogue — in expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in a strong and specific formula. Perhaps he was the first to use the word ‘Trinity.’” (Encyclopedia of the Bible, Elite of Scholars and Theologians — Part Two, Page 439)

As we see, Tertullian was the first to formulate expressions such as the Old and New Testaments and the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. What is strange is that the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity was born in 160 AD and converted to Christianity at the age of thirty, meaning that he did not explain the doctrine of the Trinity before 190 AD. It is known that the Lord Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, ended his affair with his people in the early thirties of the first century — that is, there is no one who explained the doctrine of the Trinity for 160 years after the end of Christ’s affair with his people.

And we do not find any explicit teachings of Christ regarding the Trinity, and we do not find in any of the writings of the New Testament texts explaining the doctrine of the Trinity except for the Johannine comma, which their references acknowledged was added to support a theological thought.

The Biblical Encyclopedia — A Selection of Scholars and Theologians — Part Three — Page 295:

The only explicit text in the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible has been proven to be distorted!

We saw in the previous topic that the doctrine of the Trinity was not clear to the early fathers. Ignatius confirms that the Father is God over all and describes those who say that Christ is God over all as ministers of Satan. He confirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three and does not refer to their unity in essence. Polycarp confirms that the Father is the God of Christ. Clement of Rome confirms that the Father is God alone and that Christ is the servant of God. The Didache Gospel confirms that Christ is the servant of God. The Shepherd of Hermas promotes the doctrine of the Sons and says that the Son is the Holy Spirit. The Trinity for Theophilus of Antioch was God, His Word, and His Wisdom instead of the Holy Spirit. After all these confusions, the heretic Tertullian came to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the doctrine of the Trinity in its current form seems not to have gained much popularity in Tertullian’s time. Origen was almost at the same time as him and reported the existence of a disagreement among Christians as to whether the Holy Spirit was created or not. He chose to say that it is a creation.

And there is no power or strength except with God, the Most High, the Almighty, and praise be to God for the blessing of Islam.

Note on Montanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

It is truly remarkable that Tertullian, the first to explain the Trinity, and the Pope in Rome both supported, if only for a limited period, Montanism, which claims that Montanus is the Paraclete. Indeed, as Wikipedia says, Montanism spread rapidly in the Roman Empire, which testifies that Christians did not agree throughout their history that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, but some of them thought that he was a human being, namely Montanus, just as we Muslims think that he is a human being, namely the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.

Was Tertullian’s Trinity Identical to the Current Doctrine?

We saw in the previous post that Tertullian was the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. But in addition to Tertullian being a heretic according to Christians, was Tertullian’s understanding of the relationship between the hypostases in the doctrine of the Trinity identical to what Christians currently believe? Let’s see what Christian references say.

Encyclopedia of the Church Fathers by Professor Adel Farag Abdel-Masih, Part Two, Page 175.

It was also said in the Encyclopedia of the Church Fathers, edited by Professor Adel Farag Abdel-Masih, about Tertullian and his belief that Christ is a lesser god than God the Father and that the Father is greater than him:

Encyclopedia of the Church Fathers — Part One — Editor-in-Chief: Mr. Adel Farag Abdel-Masih, Page 235.

Dr. Priest Hanna Khadri explains in detail what Tertullian believes about the relationship between the Father and the Son, saying:

The History of Christian Thought — Dr. Priest Hanna Al-Khudary, pages 528, 529.

From the above, we see that Tertullian believed that the Word is the wisdom of God and that He was in God from eternity and that He emanated or was born from the Father at the beginning of creation when God said: “Let there be light and there was” as in the Book of Genesis, so the Father did not become the Father and the Son did not become the Son except at the beginning of creation, which contradicts the current belief among Christians. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes Tertullian’s teachings about the Trinity as inconsistent and that his ideas later developed into Arianism.

We read from the Catholic Encyclopedia about Tertullian at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

Translation: Tertullian’s doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent; it is a mixture of the Roman doctrine with that of Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the correct formula for the Holy Trinity: three persons and one substance. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are numerically distinct and each is God, but they are of the same substance, state, and power. So far his doctrine is identical with that of the Council of Nicaea. But alongside of this appears the Greek view which was to develop later into Arianism: that the unity is not in the substance but in the origin of the persons. He says that from eternity Wisdom was in God, and in Wisdom the Word was not separated from God. For the purpose of creation the Word was begotten perfect as the Son. There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.

From the above it is clear that Tertullian believes that the Son emanated from God at creation, so God became the Father and His wisdom or word became the Son. Before the beginning of creation there was neither a Father nor a Son, which contradicts the current belief among Christians, as appears from the previous words of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Tertullian also fell into the teachings of subordination, and he believed that the Father is greater than the Son. He gave the Father the first place, the Son the second place, and the Holy Spirit the third place.

---

Justin Martyr

Who Is Saint Justin?

Quoted from: http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_2046.html

Justin the Martyr, the Philosopher and Defender

He was born around 100 AD in Flavia Neapolis in Judea, which is the present-day city of Nablus. His father Priscos and grandfather Baccheios were pagans of Greek origin, and he was raised in the pagan religion. He himself recounts in his book “Dialogue with Tryphon” how he converted from philosophy to Christianity, and that was in the city of Ephesus during the reign of Hadrian. Then he traveled the world in the manner of the philosophers of his time, preaching his faith, and lived in Rome during the reign of Emperor Antoninus, where he was martyred during the reign of Junius Rusticus, that is, between 163 and 167 AD.

Justin devoted himself to reading the books that the unknown elder had directed him to, and he came to the conclusion that Christian philosophy was the only one that could satisfy his mind, so he believed in Christ and was baptized. He always considered Platonic philosophy to be a preparation for the pagan world to accept Christianity. He said about himself: “I have cast aside all vain human desires and my glory now lies in being a Christian, and nothing I desire more than to face the world as a Christian.”

Justin was martyred in Rome in 166 AD during the reign of Mark Aurelius. The reason for his martyrdom may have been the defeat he inflicted on a false philosopher named Crescens in public, and this philosopher soon sought him out to the authorities, so Justin was brought to trial on charges of Christianity. He was beheaded along with six others.

After we know the status of Justin among Christians, let us get to know his doctrine. Initially, Justin confirmed that the Son is numerically different from the Father, and while we see Christians likening what is mentioned in their books that God sent Christ as the sun sends its rays, we find Justin denying the previous comparison and confirming that the Son is numerically different from the Father.

Anba Bishoy says in his Lectures to Simplify the Faith, Lecture One: The Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption:

We see from the words of Anba Bishoy that he, like the rest of the Christians, believes in one God who has three hypostases: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, like one fire with its flame, light and heat.

Was what Anba Bishoy said and what the Christians say today known to the early Christians? Let us see. The surprise is that Saint Justin — a person of high status with them, as we have seen — denied the previous likeness, emphasizing the numerical difference between the Father and the Son.

We read the words of Justin from his dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 128, on the following link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Translation — Chapter 128: The Word was not sent as a solid force but as a person born from the Father’s substance:

…Do not think, Sears, that I speak unnecessarily when I repeat those words so often, but because I know that some like to anticipate those remarks and say that the power that was sent from the Father of all and appeared to Moses and Abraham and Jacob is called an angel because he came to men and the commands of God were announced by him to men…but they say that that power is not separated and not divided from the Father, just as the light of the sun on earth is not divided and not separated from the sun in the sky, so when the sun sets its light disappears with it, and they say that the Father sends that power when he wants, and when he wants, he returns it. And in this way they say that he created the angels. But it is certain that there are angels who are always present and do not return to the form from which they came. And that power which the prophetic word calls God…is not only different like the light of the sun, but it is numerically different, as I briefly explained before, when I affirmed that this power was born from the Father by His power and will, but without interruption, as if the essence of the Father had been divided. For example, we liken the matter to fires that are kindled from one fire, which we see as different from it, but the first fire from which many fires were kindled is not diminished by any means, but remains as it is.

The final result is that Justin did not know the doctrine of the Trinity in its current form because he believed that the Son is numerically different from the Father and that his relationship with the Father is like a fire that was born from another fire and not like a ray sent from the sun, which is what Christians currently claim in their explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Justin continues to emphasize that the Father and the Son are two, that the Son is Lord, and that the Father is Lord of Lords, citing passages from the Old Testament. He says in his dialogue with Trypho in the following chapter, 129:

Translation: Now I will repeat the words I said to prove this point. When the Bible says, “The Lord rained fire from the Lord in heaven,” the prophetic words indicate that there are two of them: one on earth, which the Bible says came down because of the cry of Sodom, and the other in heaven, which is the Lord of Lords who is on earth because he is the Father and God and the cause of his strength (meaning that the God or Lord who is in heaven is the cause of the strength of the Lord who is on earth, i.e. Christ) and because he is Lord and God.

And of course it is clear here that Justin is proceeding in the same vein as what he said in the previous chapter, confirming that the Lord who is on earth, that is, Christ, and the Lord who is in heaven, that is, the Father, are two in number. And it is truly striking that Justin describes the Father as the Lord of the Lord who is on earth. Even though Justin believed that Christ was God, he believed that the Father was his Lord.

And Justin says in Chapter 56 of his dialogue with Trypho on the same link:

Translation: I will try to convince you that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and who is called God, is different from He who created all things — I mean the difference in numbers, not in will. For I affirm that He never did anything at any time since the creation of the world, and there is no other god above Him that He does not want Him to do.

Here we see that Justin confirms that even if Christ is God, he is not the Father, the Creator of the world, and that they are two in number and their will is one. It is clear that Justin does not know anything about the doctrine of the Trinity, which calls for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be one God.

In addition to Justin’s belief contradicting the current Christian belief in that he believes that the Father and the Son differ from each other numerically and likens the birth of the Son from the Father to fire generated from another fire and rejects the claim that the relationship of the Son to the Father is like the relationship of a sunbeam to the sun — in addition to all of the above, Justin was that the Son, even if he is God, is subject to the Father, and even goes so far as to describe the Father as the Lord of the Lord.

Justin says in the fifty-sixth chapter of his dialogue with Trypho:

Translation: I will try to convince you as long as you have understood the books that testify to the truth of what I say that there is another God and Lord subject to the Creator of all things and he is called an angel because he tells people anything the Creator of all things — who has no other god above him — wants to tell them.

It is clear from the above that Justin believes in the existence of two gods and tries to prove that strange doctrine from the Jewish books that testify to the oneness of God He believes that one of the two gods, who is Christ, is subject to the other god. As for the other god, he calls him the Creator of all things and says that there is no other god above him. Justin believes in two gods, one of them is a god less in divinity and subject to the other god, and the second god has no god above him!

Justin emphasizes that the Creator of all things who has no other god above him is the Lord of the Lord or the Lord of the god subject to him or the Lord of Christ. Justin says in chapter 129 of his dialogue with Trypho:

Translation: Now I will repeat the words I said to prove this point. When the Bible says, “The Lord rained fire from the Lord in heaven,” the prophetic words indicate that there are two of them: one on earth, which the Bible says came down because of the cry of Sodom, and the other in heaven, which is the Lord of Lords who is on earth because he is the Father and God and the cause of his strength (meaning that God or the Lord who is in heaven is the cause of the strength of the Lord who is on earth, i.e. Christ) and because he is Lord and God.

Of course, it is clear that Justin always talks about two gods, one of whom is subject to the other, and it is clear, of course, that he does not know that the two gods are one god, and it is clear that he does not know anything about the doctrine of the Trinity, because if he believed in it, he would be talking about the existence of three gods, not two gods.

Dr. Priest Hanna Al-Khudari comments on this belief of Justin, saying in The History of Christian Thought book, page 453:

The History of Christian Thought book — Dr. Priest Hanna Al-Khudari, page 453.

Wikipedia says about the belief of Justin on the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr#Doctrine_of_the_logos

Translation: Justin sees the Logos as a being separate from and subject to God.

Wikipedia also says:

Translation: Justin clearly distinguishes between the Son or Logos as an angel and as a messenger of God, but not the true God himself, the Creator of all things, as Justin calls him. Justin applies the title of Creator only to the Father in all his writings. There is no reference to the doctrine of the Trinity or to Christ being the true God. Justin applies the title of true God only to the Father.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says about Justin’s faith at the following link: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/St._Justin_Martyr under the title “His Theology”:

Translation: The word is God, but his divinity seems low, and so does the worship directed to him.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Justin’s faith was a mixture of Christian and pagan ideas:

Translation: There are two clear influences on the body of the doctrine mentioned above. Justin’s belief in the personality of the Word, His divinity and His incarnation is due to Christianity, but philosophical ideas are responsible for the unsuccessful concepts of the voluntary and temporary generation of the Word and subordination in Justin’s theology.

Eusebius of Caesarea

Who Is Eusebius of Caesarea?

Quoted from: http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_984.html

Historian Eusebius of Caesarea

Eusebius Pamphilus was born in Palestine around 265 AD. He was called by the name of his teacher, Pamphilus, who was martyred in 308 AD, and considered his spiritual father. This father is known as the “Father of Church History,” as he recorded for us a book on “Church History,” in which he gave us a list of the most important Christian writers and their writings. Despite the fact that it contained excerpts from books that were completely lost, and gave us the names of books that we know nothing about until now.

His spiritual father, the martyr Pamphilus, created in him an attachment to the scholar Origen of Alexandria, who opened his famous school in Caesarea Palestine and established a large library there, which Eusebius himself used in his writings.

When his spiritual father was martyred, he fled from persecution to Tyre, and from there to Egypt in the Theban Desert, where he was arrested and imprisoned for several months. In 313, he was chosen as a bishop of Caesarea, and he played a major role in the Arian conflicts. He wanted to establish peace between the two parties at the expense of doctrine, so he took some Arian trends, and was considered a “semi-Arian.” As for Saint Pope Athanasius, he was not appointed to him, but on the contrary, he was appointed to the owners of semi-Arian thought. Some attribute this tendency to his exaggerated fear of deviating to the Sabellians (followers of Sabellius who say that God is one hypostasis who appeared sometimes as the Father, other times as the Son, and a third time as the Holy Spirit).

In the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, he was not inclined towards the Nicene Creed, but he signed it without internal acceptance, and he sided with the Arian side after the council was dissolved. In 330 AD, Bishop Eustathius of Antioch was deposed in the Arian Council of Antioch; in 335 AD, he attended the Council of Tyre after the consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which decided to depose Pope Athanasius from his throne.

His writings: Perhaps the secret of his fame throughout the Christian world is due to his book “Ecclesiastical History,” which includes ten books containing the history of the church from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ to 323 AD, providing us with a comprehensive explanation of the disciples, preaching works, persecutions and heresies.

In short, Eusebius was a bishop and is considered the father of church history, but he was inclined towards Arianism and was not convinced by the Nicene Creed.

Now, to see the teachings of Eusebius of Caesarea about the Holy Spirit and his doctrine, we read from the book Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy at the link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_15-Magma3-El-Kostantineya-Inro-06-Door-Yosabios-El-Kaisary-Kabl-Al-Magma3.html#_ftn2

[1] Euseb. De Eccl. Theol. III. 6.

---

Arius and His Followers

Who Is Arius?

The following page from The History of Christian Thought by Reverend Dr. Hanna Al-Khudari, page 619, introduces Arius:

The History of Christian Thought book — by Reverend Dr. Hanna Al-Khudari — page 619.

We also present his teachings from another source:

The Book of My Church, Doctrine and Faith — by Father Mina Gad Girgis, a priest in the city of Esna — Page 76. Deposit No. 7363/2002.

Unfortunately, all of Arius’ writings were burned by Emperor Constantine:

Church History — by John Lorimer — Part Three, Page 50 — Deposit No. 8378/1988.

Of course, we do not need Arius and his followers to be Arians, as long as they denied the divinity of Christ, they do not believe in the Trinity, of course.

We read from the book Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy at the link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_14-Magma3-El-Kostantineya-Inro-05-Al-Ruh-Al-Kudus-7atta-Haza-Al-Magma3.html

We note, of course, that the first comprehensive explanation of the character of the Holy Spirit was written in the year 360 AD, more than 300 years after Christ, peace be upon him.

No comment!!

Christians may say that Arianism is heresy, so how can we claim heresy against them? The reality is that what Christians consider heresy was once official Christianity, and once upon a time Arianism was the official religion of the Roman Empire, and once upon a time all Christians were Arians. What is above is not my words, but rather the words of Christian sources.

We read from the Arabic Christian Encyclopedia: http://198.62.75.4/www1/ofm/1god/pensieri/arianesimo.htm

In every religion, heresies and innovations appear, but for an innovation to become the official religion is something I do not understand In the year 359, official Christianity did not recognize the divinity of Christ or the Trinity

And someone might say that the Roman Empire’s recognition of Arianism as an official religion happened due to political pressures and not that the Christian clergy themselves believed in Arianism, so be it… Let’s move on to the next confession.

We read from the book Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy from the fifth chapter: “5- The Council of Nicaea: 2) Arius and his heresy” at the following link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_05-Magma3-Nikeya-02-Arios-Wa-Hartakato.html

The evidence from the above is that we do not object to Christians merely because of heresy, but rather we object to them because of a belief that prevailed among them for a period of time in their history, a belief that in a period of time in history all the churches followed.

Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Eusebians

Who is Eusebius of Nicomedia? Read from the following link: http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_370.html

Eusebius of Nicomedia, head of the Eusebians

He represented the destructive force of the orthodox faith, and bore all hatred for the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD), although he had signed the Nicene Creed for no other reason than to find an opportunity to exert all his energy to resist it, and he called his followers the Eusebians. In his early life, he and his colleague Arius were disciples of Lucian of Antioch, and he was later ordained bishop of Beirut, and shortly thereafter moved to the diocese of a dangerous position, Nicomedia. When the capital was transferred from Nicomedia to Constantinople, he made every effort to move to Constantinople in 339.

He had a special position in the palace because of the attachment of the Empress Constantia, the sister of Emperor Constantine, to him, and through her he reached Constantine to constantly incite him against Pope Athanasius, presenting him with all bitterness. He succeeded in deposing Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, in 330, Athanasius in 335 (at the Council of Tyre), and Marcellus, Bishop of Ankara in 336.

As we see, Eusebius rejected the Creed written in Nicaea and his followers were known as the Eusebians. Since he rejected the Creed that says the Son is of the same essence as the Father, he naturally also did not believe in the Trinity. To be sure that the Eusebians were like the Arians, they did not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the Trinity. Of course, we read the expressions of the Eusebians and the Arians about their faith.

We read from the book of the Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy under the title “Expressions of the Arians about the Holy Spirit” at the link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_13-Magma3-El-Kostantineya-Inro-04-Al-Roo7-El-Kodous-Wa-Al-Ariosyeen.html

From the above we see that both the Arians and the Eusebians did not believe that the Holy Spirit is God and they believed that He is a creature and they rejected the saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance. That is, they do not believe in the Trinity.

---

Macedonius

Who Is Macedonius?

To learn about Macedonius and his ideas, we read from (Dictionary of the Church Fathers and Saints) at the following link: http://popekirillos.net/ar/fathersdictionary/read.php?id=1699

To explain the evidence of the so-called Macedonian heresy, we read from the book Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy on the following link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_17-Magma3-El-Kostantineya-01-Bed3atMakdonius.html

Thus, we see that Macedonius was establishing the argument and evidence that testifies to what he says about the Holy Spirit from the Holy Bible Bishop Bishoy responds that poor Macedonius cites evidence to prove the non-divinity of the Holy Spirit, and if he had adhered to the same approach in understanding Christ’s words, he would have denied Christ’s divinity as well because there are words in the Holy Bible that also suggest that Christ is not God! Bishop Bishoy then continues to narrate the sayings of some of the fathers to give imaginary interpretations of Christ’s words until he reaches the conclusion that the fact that Christ is unable to do anything of Himself does not negate His divinity!!!

---

Sabellius

The Sabellian Heresy

We read from Encyclopedia of the History of the Copts of Egypt, written by Ezzat Andraos:

Sabellius was born at the end of the second century and died in 261 AD. He was a disciple of the heretic Noetus, one of the bishops of Ptolemais in the Western Pentapolis. He was raised in the city of Rome, and was a disciple of the heretic Noetus and became a priest. He was a Libyan citizen. He studied in Rome and settled there. He took from him his teachings, which are limited to the fact that God is one person who gave the law to the children of Israel in his capacity as the Father, and became a human in the New Testament in his capacity as the Son, and descended upon the apostles in the upper room of Zion in his capacity as the Holy Spirit.

First: The content of the teachings of Noetus: This heresy began with the teachings of Noetus, where his followers believed that they were “the slanderers of the Father” (*). His heresy was simple, as he believed that God is one person who gave the law to the children of Israel in his capacity as the Father, and became a human in the New Testament in his capacity as the Son, and descended upon the apostles in the upper room of Zion in his capacity as the Holy Spirit. For this reason, he considered that the sufferings that befell the Son befell the Father, which is why this group was called “the slanderers of the Father.”

Second: The content of the teachings of Sabellius: Sabellius explained what the Holy Books teach about the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is different from Noetus, he believed that part of the divine nature was separated from God the Father and formed the Son in union with the human Jesus Christ, and that another part separated from Him and formed the Holy Spirit, and this is heresy for the simple reason that it is part of God. Sabellius believed that the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity in one God is a difficult and unacceptable doctrine and is completely rejected by the Jews and pagans, so Sabellius thought of simplifying and explaining this doctrine in a heresy consisting of three stages as follows:

• The first stage is the eternal God who created the world and everything in it — God the Father the Creator — one essence and one person, one unity and he is the same person from creation to incarnation.
• The second stage: At the incarnation, God himself, the same person and essence, is the one who was incarnated in the human Jesus of Nazareth, meaning that the God who was incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth is not the Son or the Logos but God himself, meaning that the Father became the Son and he is the one who was crucified, suffered and died.
• The third stage: After the ascension, the Spirit who descended upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost is the same person who worked in the Old Testament, and he is the same who became a son, meaning that God took the form of the Father at the beginning of creation, and in the incarnation he took the form of the Son and then took the form of the Holy Spirit.

From the above, we can summarize our belief that he believes in the existence of a God who played three roles in three different periods of time. Sabellius’ interpretation was very popular, so many called it Sabellian heresy, and many church teachers were convinced by his idea because of its simplicity and lack of complexity.

Why did Sabellius leave Rome and go to Egypt? He spread the heresy of Sabellius in Rome and Egypt. The first to embrace the heresy of Noetus and Sabellius were Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, and Callistus, his successor, and they helped the heretics spread their heresy until this heresy spread and spread throughout the West. However, Callistus ordained bishops, priests and deacons who had married a second and third time, then he permitted baptism for the forgiveness of sins and claimed that a bishop could not be removed from the priesthood no matter what sins he committed. When Sabellius did not agree with him on this, he excommunicated him, so he came to Egypt in 257 AD.

The Church’s position on Sabellius: Pope Callistus issued an excommunication against Sabellius and his followers in 220 AD. Some historians say that Sabellius remained in Rome after his excommunication, but others believe that he came to Egypt and spread his teachings there. Despite the Church’s defense against this doctrine, it spread very quickly in many parts of the world.

Sabellianism or Modalism or Monarchianism, and in the West it is called Patripassianism. This movement dates back to the time of Justin the Martyr, who condemned those who said that “the Son is the Father” (Dialogue with Trypho 128). This movement came first as a wrong reaction to the resistance of Gnostic thought in the second century, as the Gnostics looked to the Son and the Holy Spirit as two aeons emanating from the Supreme God, and that they were less than Him, so some wanted to confirm the unity between the Trinity and fell into a kind of Sabellianism. It also came as a reaction against Arianism in the fourth century. Tertullian explained in the introduction to his essay Against Praxeas that this heresy appeared out of a desire to confirm the Orthodox faith.

The next part is quoted from the historian Father Mansa Youhanna (4):

The spread of the heresy of Noetus: Sabellius was the first to embrace the heresy of Noetus and Sabellius Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome and Callistus, his successor, and he helped the heretics spread their heresy until this heresy spread in the West. What made matters worse was that Callistus ordained bishops, priests and deacons from those who had married a second and third time — then he permitted baptism for the forgiveness of sins — and he claimed that a bishop is not cut off from the priesthood no matter how many sins he has committed.

Sabellius in Egypt and his heresy of the “Painful Fathers”: But Sabellius did not agree with the latter works, so he excommunicated him, so he left Rome and went to Egypt in the year 257 AD and began to spread his heresy there, which was based on the heresy of Noetus and the heresy of the “Painful Fathers.”

What is the content of the doctrine of the Painful Fathers? They believe that it is the Self Himself, not one of His hypostases, who atones for the sins of mankind.

A local council: Sabellius misled many believers and some bishops with this heresy, so Pope Dionysius stood up like a valiant hero and resisted their error in a decree he sent to the bishops Ammonius and Avrandar. When he was unable to bring Sabellius back, he excommunicated him in a council he held in Alexandria in 261 AD after he refuted in a letter all his corrupt teachings.

The Roman bishop excommunicated the Egyptian bishop: The supporters of Sabellius saw that they needed someone to support them, so some Roman intruders tempted them to evil and discord, so they wrote a letter to Dionysius, the bishop of Rome, in which they accused their patriarch of heresy and innovation. The Roman bishop was a young man with little experience and knowledge compared to the Alexandrian patriarch, who was well-read and experienced in dealing with everyone. Dionysius the Roman proceeded in an arbitrary manner and committed an act of extravagance. He held a council in which he excommunicated Dionysius, the Egyptian patriarch. He even sent to inform him of the ruling and asked him if he had anything with which to defend himself, which the Egyptian patriarch considered audacity on the part of the bishop of Rome and an insult to him. However, due to his great piety and adherence to the commands of the Christian religion, he was not satisfied to meet evil with evil, but rather took to his pen and sent him a letter in which he explained to him the phrases that he had difficulty understanding. That letter was the limit. A break in the dispute that historians call “the Dionysian dispute” and the Roman bishop was convinced that he had been hasty and wrong in his work and respected the Pope of Alexandria and stood by him in refuting the heresy of Paul of Samasata, Bishop of Antioch.

References: (1) History of the Church — Eusebius of Caesarea (264–340 AD) — Translated by Father Markos Daoud — Deposit number at Dar Al-Kutub 5207/1979 — Modern Cairo Printing Press Ahmed Bahi El-Din El-Kharboutly, Book Seven, Chapter Six (K7 F6) (2) He was the head of a Shiite in Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (198-217 AD) (3) The Five Western Cities (Libya now) (4) History of the Coptic Church, Father Mansi Youhanna, printed by Maktabat Al-Mahabbah in 1982 AD, Third Edition, p. 88

(5) History of the Coptic Church, Father Mansa Youhanna, printed by the Library of Love in 1982 AD, third edition, pp. 117-118.

As we see from what we have quoted, Sabellius did not know the current doctrine of the Trinity and believed that God is one person and not three persons and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are images of the one person of God. We said that all religions show heresies and heresies, so there is no problem, but the strange thing is that heresy spreads terribly as it happens in Christianity, unlike other religions. Sabellius’s heresy dominated the Church of Rome and spread to the West, as we see. Then Sabellius moved to Egypt and began to spread his heresy there. The Church of Alexandria stood up to Sabellius’s teachings, and we saw the historian, Priest Mansi Youhanna, admit that the popes are not infallible and that if it were not for the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Rome would have become a group of heresies!!!

It is clear that Sabellius’s teaching and doctrine that God is one hypostasis, after it spread and covered the West in the third century AD, was not completely limited, but remained present until the fourth century, when it was anathematized again in the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

We read from the book Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy at the following link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_26-Magma3-El-Kostantineya-10-Bed3at-Sabilios-Intro.html

We also read from the same book at the following link: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_31-Magma3-El-Kostantineya-15-Edanat-Sabilios.html

---

Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ecumenical Councils and Heresies by Anba Bishoy, Section 39: The Heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_39-Christological-Controversies-05-Hartakat-Theodoor-Al-Mobsoyesty.html

[2] C.J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol III, AMS Press 1972, reprinted from the edition of 1883 Edinburgh p.6,7. [3] Hardouin and Mansi, ll. cc. § 29; Dorner, lcp52

Quoted from: http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/CopticHistory_02-History-of-the-Coptic-Church-Councils-n-Christian-Heresies/Al-Magame3-Al-Maskooneya/Encyclopedia-Coptica_Councils_39-Christological-Controversies-05-Hartakat-Theodoor-Al-Mobsoyesty.html

From the above it is clear that Theodore denied the divinity of Christ, but Anba Bishoy was ashamed to declare this fact, as he likened the union of God with Christ to the union of man and woman to become one body. Where did Theodore get the idea of the union of man and woman? He got it from the Old Testament.

We read in Genesis, Chapter 2:

It is clear that the unity between the man and his wife is a metaphorical unity. Theodore means that the unity between God and Christ is only a metaphorical unity and that it is a union in dignity and will and that God dwelt in Christ with good will. The man says that Christ is a human being and not God, but the unity between him and God is a metaphorical unity, meaning that he understood what was attributed to Christ in the Gospel of John: “I and the Father are one” — that it is a metaphorical unity and not a real unity. And the saying that when Thomas said “my Lord and my God” when Christ appeared to him after the alleged resurrection incident, he did not mean that Christ was his God, but he was saying it out of extreme astonishment — the man simply says that Christ is not God. And since Theodore did not believe in the divinity of Christ, he naturally did not believe in the Trinity.

It is truly strange that the Council of Chalcedon did not forbid his teachings, and Anba Bishoy explains the non-forbidding of his teachings at the Council of Chalcedon by the intervention of the emperor. We ask with astonishment: Where is the Holy Spirit? Why did He not descend upon the fathers to guide them to the truth? What is the evidence that the Creed of Nicaea in 325 AD, which acknowledged the divinity of Christ, or the Creed written in Constantinople in 381 AD, were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not under pressure from the emperor?

---

Summary of the Topic

Christians imagine that the doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his followers, and when we review the sayings of the fathers, we are surprised that many of them did not know the doctrine of the Trinity and their sayings contradicted it.

The first century AD:

Ignatius denounces that Christ is God over all, although he sees that Christ is God, but he confirms that the Father is the Lord of Christ and that Christ is subject to God and describes those who say that Christ is God over all as ministers of Satan. Ignatius also confirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three and does not indicate that they are one God.

The Didache describes Christ as a servant of God, and if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the word servant in Greek may also mean son, he described David, peace be upon him, with the same word and in one sentence, which means that the early Christians called Christ and David, peace be upon him, the title of Son of God and that they wanted metaphorical sonship.

The second century AD — The first half:

Polycarp confirms that the Father is the God of Christ.

Clement of Rome says that the Father is God alone and Christ is his servant and confirms that God sent Christ as Christ sent his followers.

Justin talks about the existence of two gods, describing one of them, the Father, as the creator of everything, and the other, Christ, confirming that he is subject to God the Father, the creator of everything, according to his expression. He even goes so far as to describe the Father as the Lord of the Lord, meaning that Christ, although he is a god in his view, the Father is his Lord. Justin confirms that the Son is a Lord and the Father is another Lord, so he never indicates that they are one God.

The book of the Shepherd of Hermas spread, and some Christian clerics considered it a canonical inspired book. The book of the Shepherd refers to the doctrine of the Sons, which says that Christ was born as a servant of God and acquired divinity when he was baptized. He also describes the Holy Spirit as the Son.

The second half of the second century:

Theophilus of Antioch, for the first time, uses the word Trinity, but he says that the Trinity is God, His Word, and His Wisdom, and not the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian, for the first time, explains the doctrine of the Trinity after the year 190 AD, in the late second century or early third. It is worth noting that Tertullian believed that the Paraclete was Montanus, not the Holy Spirit, meaning that he followed a person called to prophecy, as he said that the Word was born from God when God said, “Let there be light and there was” as in the Book of Genesis, so the Father did not become the Father and the Son did not become the Son except at the beginning of creation, which contradicts the traditional Christian belief that the Son was born from God from eternity and that there is no time in which the Son was not born.

Basil began to spread his teachings that God is one person and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different images in which the same God appeared.

The third century AD:

In its early days, Sabellianism (Basil’s teachings that God is one person) dominated the Church of Rome and spread throughout the West.

Origen told us that there was a disagreement among Christians: Is the Holy Spirit created or uncreated? He chose to say that the Holy Spirit is created. He also emphasized that worship is only directed to the Father through the Son because the Son himself prayed to God.

The late third and fourth centuries:

Arius and the Arians appeared and denied the divinity of Christ, even though they described him as the Son. They said about him that he was created and that God created the world through him. The teachings of Arius were rejected at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the Creed was written stating that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and did not mention the Holy Spirit. However, the Pope returned and accepted Arianism in the thirties of the same century in another council, and Arianism became the official religion of the Roman state until the sixties of the same century. All churches became Arian, denying the divinity of Christ, and no one remained who rejected Arianism except Athanasius, according to the words of Anba Bishoy.

One of the most prominent Arians or quasi-Arians was Eusebius of Caesarea, known as the Father of Church History, who confirmed that the Holy Spirit was created.

The same was said for Eusebius of Nicomedia, the leader of the Eusebians, and they, like the Arians, rejected the expression that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and considered it an unbiblical term. They confirmed that the Holy Spirit was created.

Then Macedonius appeared in the second half of the fourth century to confirm that the Holy Spirit was created, but his teachings were rejected at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. For the first time, he wrote a Creed stating the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, and from that time the Trinity became the official doctrine of the Christian religion.

The fifth century:

Theodore of Moses appeared to confirm that Christ is a human being and that God’s union with him is only a connection and not a union, and that the unity between him and God is a metaphorical unity like the unity of a man with his wife. He confirms that God inhabited Christ by good will.

---