When did the apostasy begin in early Christianity?

By apostasy, I primarily mean the father and the son, Jehovah and Jesus being one entity? What was the early foundations of the trinity? am currently reading through the supposed "Church fathers" to try to get an idea. I know some members here are very knowledgeable about early Christianity.
 
Last edited:

kirmmy

Well-known member
I believe it was at the Council of Nicea that Constantine, a political hack that pretended to be a Christian, declared the Trinity to be official Church doctrine. He only did it to make the heathens happy and solidify his empire.

But what do I know, I'm not a historian.

ETA: There was apparently arguments for the trinity before then. Constantine adopted it as official though.
 

kirmmy

Well-known member
Found this:

Being trinitarians you'll find plenty of BS to wade through, unfortunately. They claim that it is and was and that's what the apostles teached. That's bunk. But if you can get past that they start to talk about the "official adoption" into the church over the earlier Christian era.

I can't stomach much of this myself... You can't fix stupid and these guys have it in spades.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
It seems from some texts I've read that Christians in the late 1st century and most of the 2nd were more prone to adopting subordinationist bitheistic and tritheistic views than proto-trinitarian ones it looks to me that the 190's and early 200's AD was when the inner apostasy (outer apostasy would be all the external mostly gnostic sects) in Christendom significantly accelerated even so it looks like most that were moving closer to the Trinity in the third century still believed the son and holy spirit were lower/less than and subordinate to the father. It was the idiocy of some of the prominent Egyptian christians that seems to have been a major problem they viewed that since god does not change and since Christ has the titles of word and wisdom of God that if Christ was not a component of God then god would have at one time lacked attributes like wisdom as if the titles were synonymous with the qualities themselves. Some of the contemporaries of Arius that were sympathetic of him understood how retarded that is. One could say the same thing about many angels given there names very often end with El and mean (insert attribute here) of God. Gabriel means strength of God did God lack strength before he made Gabriel? 😂
 
Last edited:

Driven

Well-known member
It seems from some texts I've read that Christians in the late 1st century and most of the 2nd were more prone to adopting subordinationist bitheistic and tritheistic views than proto-trinitarian ones it looks to me that the 190's and early 200's AD was when the inner apostasy (outer apostasy would be all the external mostly gnostic sects) in Christendom significantly accelerated even so it looks like most that were moving closer to the Trinity in the third century still believed the son and holy spirit were lower/less than and subordinate to the father. It was the idiocy of some of the prominent Egyptian christians that seems to have been a major problem they viewed that since god does not change and since Christ has the titles of word and wisdom of God that if Christ was not an external component of God then god would have at one time lacked attributes like wisdom as if the titles were synonymous with the qualities themselves. Some of the contemporaries of Arius that were sympathetic of him understood how retarded that is. One could say the same thing about many angels given there names very often end with El and mean (insert attribute here) of God. Gabriel means strength of God did God lack strength before he made Gabriel? 😂
Someday I might understand the phrase “subordinationist bitheistic and tritheistic views than proto-trinitarian”!
 

kirmmy

Well-known member
Someday I might understand the phrase “subordinationist bitheistic and tritheistic views than proto-trinitarian”!
I think it means they believed in a 2 and 3 person godhead but without the "all in one" flavor. Think the triune Gods of Egypt. 3 Gods but they aren't all in one being.
It seems from some texts I've read that Christians in the late 1st century and most of the 2nd were more prone to adopting subordinationist bitheistic and tritheistic views than proto-trinitarian ones it looks to me that the 190's and early 200's AD was when the inner apostasy (outer apostasy would be all the external mostly gnostic sects) in Christendom significantly accelerated even so it looks like most that were moving closer to the Trinity in the third century still believed the son and holy spirit were lower/less than and subordinate to the father. It was the idiocy of some of the prominent Egyptian christians that seems to have been a major problem they viewed that since god does not change and since Christ has the titles of word and wisdom of God that if Christ was not an external component of God then god would have at one time lacked attributes like wisdom as if the titles were synonymous with the qualities themselves. Some of the contemporaries of Arius that were sympathetic of him understood how retarded that is. One could say the same thing about many angels given there names very often end with El and mean (insert attribute here) of God. Gabriel means strength of God did God lack strength before he made Gabriel? 😂
GP, ya got to start simplifying your stuff man. I read that 3 times and am still having trouble. :LOL:
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
Someday I might understand the phrase “subordinationist bitheistic and tritheistic views than proto-trinitarian”!
Subordinationism means that the son and/or the holy spirit are submissive/obedient/lower in authority than the father whether they are parts of a triune God or different beings.

Monarchy of the father is a subordinationist version of the Trinity common among orthodox Christians while not deviating from the Trinity monarchians view the father as greater in power and authority describing the son and spirit as the right and left hand of the father. This could be a relic of some church father's in the third century that while well on the way to the Catholic Trinity viewed the father as the whole the son and spirit derrivative parts inferior to the whole. One of the major factors that made the eastern orthodox break off from the Vatican was that the eastern Christians understood from the Bible that the father alone was the source of holy spirit while the Vatican insisted that the father and son are both and equal sources of the holy spirit in order to emphasize the co-equality part of their creeds.

A Bitheist sometimes called ditheist Christian is not much more than a semantic distinction from Arian unitarians like JW's (the two main types of unitarians are Arians and the adoptionist types that deny Jesus preexistence) one that thinks it's ok to call Jesus divine or a god in a relative sense but that the father alone is eternal without beginning the Father is The God (definite article in John) Jesus is the only begotten God (lacks definite article) with a chronological origin. when I listened to Justin martyr I'd categorize or define him as this most of his dialogue with the jew trypho is about Jesus preexistence as the angelic prince/"god" of Israel representing the father. Though bitheist/neo arians are comfortable calling Jesus divine and honor him more than most witnesses Bitheism is usually monaltrous it does not mean or require Jesus be worshipped in any way but is primarily emphasizes the unique nature of the son as having a greater likeness to the father then his younger angelic brothers given Proverbs describes wisdom as brought forth as with labor pains implying his origin was much more like biological birth than the angels that were made/manufactured by means of the son. Because of his origin, his role as mediator and the master worker God used in creating everything they usually see him as an intermediate category of being ambiguously somewhere in the spectrum between the the rest of the angels and the father in how divine he is. Essentially the main difference between there christology and ours is bi/ditheist are divided on whether Jesus is or isn't Michael.

Mormons are basically tritheist. A tritheist is like a bitheist except they think the holy spirit is a being like the son not a part of the father/god that is usually viewed as subordinate to both the father and son rather than either an impersonal force or a person component of a triune god. If I remember right one text refers to "the angel of the holy spirit" as some creature stationed at God's left hand there were also judaizer sects that thought the holy spirit was Jesus divine mother because of a modified version of the gospel to the Hebrews.

It's important to understand there are many creatures referred to as Elohim in the bible monotheism belief of only one "god" existing is not important but monaltry exclusive worship of the only True/absolute God the eternal omnipotent first cause not directing worship to any other being without his explicit permission or requirement.
 
Last edited:

Driven

Well-known member
Subordinationism means that the son and/or the holy spirit are submissive/obedient/lower in authority than the father whether they are parts of a triune God or different beings.

Monarchy of the father is a subordinationist version of the Trinity common among orthodox Christians while not deviating from the Trinity monarchians view the father as greater in power and authority describing the son and spirit as the right and left hand of the father. This could be a relic of some church father's in the third century that while well on the way to the Nicea Trinity viewed the father as the whole the son and spirit derrivative parts inferior to the whole. One of the major factors that made the eastern orthodox break off from the Vatican was that the eastern Christians understood from the Bible that the father alone was the source of holy spirit while the Vatican insisted that the father and son are both and equal sources of the holy spirit in order to emphasize the co-equality part of their creeds.

A Bitheist sometimes called ditheist Christian is not much more than a semantic distinction from Arian unitarians like JW's (the two main types of unitarians are Arians and the adoptionist types that deny Jesus preexistence) one that thinks it's ok to call Jesus divine or a god in a relative sense but that the father alone is eternal without beginning the Father is The God (definite article in John) Jesus is the only begotten God (indefinite article) with a chronological origin. when I listened to Justin martyr I'd categorize or define him as this most of his dialogue with the jew trypho is about Jesus preexistence as the angelic prince/"god" representing the father of Israel. Though bitheist are comfortable calling Jesus divine and honor him more than most witnesses Bitheism is usually monaltrous does not mean or require Jesus be worshipped in any way but is primarily emphasizes the unique nature of the son as having a greater likeness to the father then his younger angelic brothers given Proverbs describes wisdom as brought forth as with labor pains implying his origin was much more like biological birth than the angels that were made/manufactured by means of the son. Because of his origin, his role as mediator and the master worker God used in creating everything they usually see him as an intermediate category of being ambiguously somewhere in the spectrum between the the rest of the angels and the father of how divine he is. Essentially the main difference between there christology abd ours is bi/ditheist are divided on whether Jesus is or isn't Michael.

Mormons are basically tritheist. A tritheist is like a bitheist except they think the holy spirit is a being like the son not a part of the father/god that is usually viewed as subordinate to both the father and son rather than either an impersonal force or a person component of a triune god. If I remember right "the angel of the holy spirit" as some creature stationed at God's left hand there were also judaizer sects that thought the holy spirit was Jesus divine mother because of a modified version of the gospel to the Hebrews.

It's important to understand there are many creatures referred to as Elohim in the bible monotheism belief of only one "god" existing but monaltry exclusive worship of the only True/absolute God the eternal omnipotent first cause not directing worship to any other being without his explicit permission or requirement.
Very interesting info. Thank you.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
Binitarianism is either believing the father and son are persons of the same God like trinitarians but not viewing the holy spirit as a person of a Trinity or believing the holy spirit is a person part of God but the son is seperate from The God. The council of Nicea barely mentioned the holy spirit only acknowledging that there is something called the holy spirit and Christians believe in it so the council of Nicea was binitarian. There were four councils between Nicea and the first council of Constantinople (the one where Emperor Theodosius imposed the fully formulated Trinity) in those four councils the arians & semi arians won but the Catholic church arbitrarily sweeps them under the rug denying they were ecumenical so that the 6th council is framed as the 2nd.

Before being persuaded to favoring the Unitarian position which his successor shared Constantine probably thought the binitarianism position he pushed at Nicea would make pagans adopt Christendom more expediently because the Roman god Janus is simultaneously father and son depicted with two faces. Janus was the god of doors and hinges which is where the notion of cardinals and the Pope's version of the keys comes from. Many of the bishops that signed the council of Nicea did so "with their hands not their hearts" doubling down on Unitarian or moderate positions when back in their territories it appears to have been a more or less even split before the signing until eusbesius of Nicomedia Arius main supporter caved to the emperor's pressure and signed it at which point all except two of those neutral or anti Trinity signed it.

The moderates and the semi arians in the 4th century conflicts over the Trinity appear to have deceived themselves into thinking any doctrinal compromise they made on the matter could be remedied later by later changes in rulers and or institutional power. The main figure of the Trinity faction of the Nicea controversy Athanasius was a criminal exiled five times over the course of his life accused of murdering a bishop, sorcery, illegal taxation, visiting a prostitute for her services and impeding the grain supply from Egypt to Constantinople and treason. Most of the centrist in the controversy even ones that signed Nicea appear to have loathed the trinitarians leaders.
 

Attachments

  • c60dca23f77d4edfea4ecd8aba5ef80a--coin-art-ancient-greek.jpg
    c60dca23f77d4edfea4ecd8aba5ef80a--coin-art-ancient-greek.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 2
  • d790e80f2db20cfc1e4b38245100eb33.jpg
    d790e80f2db20cfc1e4b38245100eb33.jpg
    90.5 KB · Views: 2

The God Pill

Well-known member
Ufilas was a arian bishop sent as a missionary to the goths he invented the gothic language and oversaw the team that translated for the first gothic bible. His adopted son Auxentius was expelled from his original post by Theodosius edict against the unitarian bishops. Auxentius went to Milan where he was in ongoing conflict with the trinitarian bishop Ambrose. According to Auxentius writings Ufilas had his own creed that offers us a window into Gothic Christianity before the goths transitioned to catholicism in 589 AD.

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in one God the Father, the only unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him so that one alone among all beings is God the Father, who is also the God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); being neither God (the Father) nor our God (Christ), but the minister of Christ... subject and obedient in all things to the Son; and the Son, subject and obedient in all things to God who is his Father... (whom) he ordained in the Holy Spirit through his Christ.
 

kirmmy

Well-known member
Binitarianism is either believing the father and son are persons of the same God like trinitarians but not viewing the holy spirit as a person of a Trinity or believing the holy spirit is a person part of God but the son is seperate from The God. The council of Nicea barely mentioned the holy spirit only acknowledging that there is something called the holy spirit and Christians believe in it so the council of Nicea was binitarian. There were four councils between Nicea and the first council of Constantinople (the one where Emperor Theodosius imposed the fully formulated Trinity) in those four councils the arians & semi arians won but the Catholic church arbitrarily sweeps them under the rug denying they were ecumenical so that the 6th council is framed as the 2nd.

Before being persuaded to favoring the Unitarian position which his successor shared Constantine probably thought the binitarianism position he pushed at Nicea would make pagans adopt Christendom more expediently because the Roman god Janus is simultaneously father and son depicted with two faces. Janus was the god of doors and hinges which is where the notion of cardinals and the Pope's version of the keys comes from. Many of the bishops that signed the council of Nicea did so "with their hands not their hearts" doubling down on Unitarian or moderate positions when back in their territories it appears to have been a more or less even split before the signing until eusbesius of Nicomedia Arius main supporter caved to the emperor's pressure and signed it at which point all except two of those neutral or anti Trinity signed it.

The moderates and the semi arians in the 4th century conflicts over the Trinity appear to have deceived themselves into thinking any doctrinal compromise they made on the matter could be remedied later by later changes in rulers and or institutional power. The main figure of the Trinity faction of the Nicea controversy Athanasius was a criminal exiled five times over the course of his life accused of murdering a bishop, sorcery, illegal taxation, visiting a prostitute for her services and impeding the grain supply from Egypt to Constantinople and treason. Most of the centrist in the controversy even ones that signed Nicea appear to have loathed the trinitarians leaders.
Excellent, in-depth analysis! Thanks.

"Athanasius was a criminal exiled five times over the course of his life accused of murdering a bishop, sorcery, illegal taxation, visiting a prostitute for her services and impeding the grain supply from Egypt to Constantinople and treason."

LOL! He was a busy little fellow, eh.
 

Driven

Well-known member
Binitarianism is either believing the father and son are persons of the same God like trinitarians but not viewing the holy spirit as a person of a Trinity or believing the holy spirit is a person part of God but the son is seperate from The God. The council of Nicea barely mentioned the holy spirit only acknowledging that there is something called the holy spirit and Christians believe in it so the council of Nicea was binitarian. There were four councils between Nicea and the first council of Constantinople (the one where Emperor Theodosius imposed the fully formulated Trinity) in those four councils the arians & semi arians won but the Catholic church arbitrarily sweeps them under the rug denying they were ecumenical so that the 6th council is framed as the 2nd.

Before being persuaded to favoring the Unitarian position which his successor shared Constantine probably thought the binitarianism position he pushed at Nicea would make pagans adopt Christendom more expediently because the Roman god Janus is simultaneously father and son depicted with two faces. Janus was the god of doors and hinges which is where the notion of cardinals and the Pope's version of the keys comes from. Many of the bishops that signed the council of Nicea did so "with their hands not their hearts" doubling down on Unitarian or moderate positions when back in their territories it appears to have been a more or less even split before the signing until eusbesius of Nicomedia Arius main supporter caved to the emperor's pressure and signed it at which point all except two of those neutral or anti Trinity signed it.

The moderates and the semi arians in the 4th century conflicts over the Trinity appear to have deceived themselves into thinking any doctrinal compromise they made on the matter could be remedied later by later changes in rulers and or institutional power. The main figure of the Trinity faction of the Nicea controversy Athanasius was a criminal exiled five times over the course of his life accused of murdering a bishop, sorcery, illegal taxation, visiting a prostitute for her services and impeding the grain supply from Egypt to Constantinople and treason. Most of the centrist in the controversy even ones that signed Nicea appear to have loathed the trinitarians leaders.
Very interesting info. We should rename you “brainiac”.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
The protoevangelium of "James" appears to be one of the early roots of mariolatry it's a story about Mary from before her parents pregnancy through Herod's slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem. It was probably created in the late second century by encratites a sect that Tatian was a prominent member of and possibly founded after he went bitter, angry and eventually off the deep end shortly after his mentor Justin martyr's martyrdom.

It's pretty absurd and probably a product of gnostic/docetic contempt of/revulsion to matter but the catholics and orthodox through history have loved it because it is one of the oldest affirmations of the perpetual virginity of mary and while not saying whether or not she was born without original sin her conception occurs miraculously without intercourse. The story has her given by her parents for temple service like Samuel at the tabernacle where she serves until puberty at which the priests determine to select a guardian for the adolescent which is Joseph. Joseph is a widower old enough to have adult sons which supplies an excuse to deny James Jude and their siblings are offspring of Mary. In the story when Jesus is born he doesn't emerge the conventional way but teleports from her womb into her arms the story ending with John the Baptist father being executed for not disclosing the location of his son during herod's genocide of the male infants.
 

Driven

Well-known member
The protoevangelium of "James" appears to be one of the early roots of mariolatry it's a story about Mary from before her parents pregnancy through Herod's slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem. It was probably created in the late second century by encratites a sect that Tatian was a prominent member of and possibly founded after he went bitter, angry and eventually off the deep end shortly after his mentor Justin martyr's martyrdom.

It's pretty absurd and probably a product of gnostic/docetic contempt of/revulsion to matter but the catholics and orthodox through history have loved it because it is one of the oldest affirmations of the perpetual virginity of mary and while not saying whether or not she was born without original sin her conception occurs miraculously without intercourse. The story has her given by her parents for temple service like Samuel at the tabernacle where she serves until puberty at which the priests determine to select a guardian for the adolescent which is Joseph. Joseph is a widower old enough to have adult sons which supplies an excuse to deny James Jude and their siblings are offspring of Mary. In the story when Jesus is born he doesn't emerge the conventional way but teleports from her womb into her arms the story ending with John the Baptist father being executed for not disclosing the location of his son during herod's genocide of the male infants.
Wow! People love their fables or artfully contrived false stories.
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
The answer to when the apostasy started as far as I can discern is shortly after Peter's encounter with Simon the sorcerer in the book of Acts. Multiple second century Christians credit Simon as the founder of the apostasy and the initial emergence of the gnostic sects. The (gnostic) "Gospel of Thomas" is very old usually dated somewhere in the range of 40-60 AD. Given the JW all scripture inspired book dates Matthew's gospel at 41 AD and the gospel of Luke at the late 50's or early 60's it's likely this fake gospel was the first one in circulation after Matthew. It would have been written by a Simonian what probably occured was around the early 50's AD when Thomas went on a missionary journey to India this forger aware of his absence and thus inability to refute works attributed to him when he was thousands of miles away wrote this work to promote gnostic doctrine in the apostles name. The gospel of John goes out of it's way to oppose this text as well as the docetic heresy which was the earliest apostate doctrine the Christians contended with.

Gnosticism was a problem even in the apostle Paul's lifetime as he references it several times in his letters.
 
Last edited:

Nomex

Well-known member
Someday I might understand the phrase “subordinationist bitheistic and tritheistic views than proto-trinitarian”!
Don't bother...you don't need to, and neither does God Pill....Henry Ford was accused of being ignorant by a Chicago News paper...he took them to court. In an effort to prove he was ignorant, the newspaper's lawyer made a great effort to prove things Henry Ford did not know. Finally Henry Ford said, "I don't need to fill my mind with information I do not know, when I can summon any number of people to my aide, who know the answers to the things I don't know". The point....is knowing what you need to know the answers to, and then getting those answers. It doesn't mean you have to be the one with the answers, especially if you know how to get the answers!

When it comes to the trinity, God made us in his image, God does not suffer from Schizophrenia....or it would not be a mental disorder! Their God is a Schizophrenic! That should explain a lot.
 
Top