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.

 

[The God Pill]

Just finished reading the first book of Eusbesius of Caesarea's church history it was finished very close to the council of Nicea judging from how it reads probably a few months earlier. In talking about Jesus preexistence it's not without a number of issues but it's clearly subordinationist and after equating Jesus with Proverbs wisdom quotes a verse of Proverbs 8 that says wisdom is created It sounds more like he described Jesus as a participant in his father's divine nature than a component of The God. I'm not terribly familiar with his views though yet just as I'm only begining to look into Tertullian.

There are major agenda driven biases/inacuracies in the first book however. For one instead of going by the Luke's genealogy is via Mary explanation he asserts Africanus convoluted explanation of both genealogies being through Joseph involving levirate marriage. Second he mocks the reality of Jesus having younger half siblings by writing "James, who was one of the so-called brethren of the savior." Third since he was supportive of the whole Pope thing it's not convenient for him to acknowledge Paul called Peter out on a shortcoming so he claims it was a different Cephas Paul was dealing with.

 

[The God Pill]

Read the account he gives of the king of Edessa that allegedly requested Jesus heal him and was responded to by being told a disciple would be sent after the end of Jesus ministry to heal him. While I'm not critical of the basis outline of what happened assuming the events occurred Eusbesius clearly puts words in peoples mouths claiming the king said he would have brought his army against judea over the Jews role in Jesus execution if he didn't fear the Romans reacting and he also clearly plays with that disciples words having him say things about Jesus time from death to ascension that would agree with and prop up the nonsense of the apocryphal "Gospel of Nicodemus." which was a text that was probably the source of the catholic and orthodox doctrine of the harrowing of hell.

 

[The God Pill]

Was skimming through the last few chapters of the "gospel of Nicodemus" because it's one of the earliest text to try to fraudulently differentiate Jesus from Michael and I picked up something. The forger that crafted the narrative appears to have been familiar with the Christianized version of the apocalypse of Elijah (was originally a Jewish text that may or may not have been authentic but Christians tweaked it then Jews tweaked there's in there own direction.) As Elijah and Enoch are portrayed in heaven waiting till they will serve as the two witnesses and do all the things they do in the Christianised version of apocalypse of Elijah.

 

[The God Pill]

Pieced together a bit on ascension of Isaiah. I read it a long time ago started skimming through the last few chapters again. The first half of ascension of Isaiah known as the martyrdom of Isaiah and the testament of Hezekiah are a Christianized story based on/incorporating an older Jewish text the second half of ascension of Isaiah the vision of Isaiah was probably either written or edited decades after the Christian version of the first half
the second half probably a gnostic tale influenced by or an influence on the protoevangelium of James as the infant Jesus teleports from her womb to outside of her the infant also breastfeeds not out of any need as a physical creature but to maintain his disguise 🥸 as supposedly he descended to be born incognito and no angels knew it was him. It also portrays the righteous that had died as already in heaven before Jesus became human but not yet crowned. The holy spirit is some sort of angel that's equated with the spirit of prophecy at work in Isaiah and the other prophets.

Beliar/Satan is equated with the antichrist said to descend to the earth in the future in the form of emperor Nero some overlap in it's antichrist stuff with apocalypse of Elijah but could be some gnostic flavor to it because beliar is called the great ruler (archon) "who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king,"
The Gnostics always had contempt for the phrase in Isaiah that it says 9 Remember the former things of long ago, That I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is no one like me. so I'm suspicious that there might be some gnostic implications to this part on the devil as antichrist

7. And all the people in the world will believe in him. 8. And they will sacrifice to him and they will serve him saying: "This is God and beside him there is no other."

It also has Michael and Gabriel as the two angels by Jesus tomb hence disassociating Jesus from Michael in it's narrative. Justin martyr and Iraneus refer to some material of ascension of Isaiah and both opposed gnosticism it was an earlier version/s that preceded the gnostic additions they believed in.

 

[The God Pill]

What I don't understand about the trinity is that according to there dogma, you have three "persons" in One God, the father, the son and the holy spirit. They have distinct personlities. So who exactly is in charge? Is it the father? If it is the father, then why is Christ emphasised? If one person is in charge, then what is the point of the other two and how can they then be God?. Or do they have a committee to make decisions with majority rule. Do they have democratic elections each time a person prays? I thought a house divided against itself cannot stand, so what happens if they disagree? Are they allowed to disagree? If they are not allowed to disagree, then how can they be distinct personalities? If they do disagree then how can God be one? It makes no sense and boggles the mind. I saw a video of Athanasius himself, Sam Shamoun praying to all three. Its Hindu Christianity. Unbelievable this dogma took hold..

I wonder if the common people really believed this nonsense

I apologize for posts after your last comment being more tangential. I'll respond properly later this week or weekend

 

[Artist77]

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.

Do you have any link to information about these councils The God Pill? thank you

 

[Artist77]

I apologize for posts after your last comment being more tangential. I'll respond properly later this week or weekend

My post itself was off on a tangent, it was more just observation/venting

 

[The God Pill]

Do you have any link to information about these councils The God Pill? thank you

Not much beyond wikipedia articles but one thing that helps is to look into the prominent Christian figures alive in the third through early fifth century another is to look into the various churches that broke off from the Catholic Church before the reformation and all the councils from the 4th through the 11th century Most schisms before protestantism were almost invariably connected to differences of opinion on aspects of the Trinity doctrine. Eusbesius of Nicomedia is a good place to start a semi Arian bishop around during Nicea he was the benefactor of Arius and of Ufilas. Personally I associate Hippolytus era in the early third century with the apostasy gaining momentum I don't remember where he would have stood on the road to the trinity doctrine but he seemed more off on other topics than the Christians before 190 AD. That is not to say I think he contributed to the apostasy in significant ways he seems less wrong than most contemporaries but he gives us a window into how things were sinking.

 

[The God Pill]

This is what the antichrist mythology had morphed into by the beginning of the 200's AD though it hadn't changed much since several decades prior.

 

[Artist77]

I am going to post below some of the Watchtower's thoughts on Arius, which I found to be interesting:

Because the fourth-century dissident theologian Arius stated the Biblical truth that “the Son is not unbegotten,” and Jehovah’s Witnesses accept that truth, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, also, is a form of Arianism.” First, it must be stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a particular “Christology,” defined as “the theological interpretation of the person and work of Christ.” They share the view of the Christian layman who is recorded as having bluntly told the wrangling theologians assembled in Nicaea in 325 C.E.: ‘Christ did not teach us dialectics, art, or vain subtleties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works.’ Apparently this man had suffered for his faith in Christ, even as many of Jehovah’s Witnesses have. Like him, they have no faith in theological philosophy. They accept with simplicity what the Bible states about God, Christ and the holy spirit, and they are willing to suffer for their simple faith and prove it by good works.

Secondly, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused of Arianism, inasmuch as they disagree with Arius’ views in many respects. For example, Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. The Bible teaches that the Son ‘fully knows’ the Father and that the Son is “the one that has explained him.” (Matthew 11:27; John 1:14, 18) Arius claimed that the Word became God’s Son “by adoption” because of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible says that he was created by Jehovah as his “only-begotten son.” (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14) Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him “the name that is above every other name.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Far from being modern-day Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe what the Bible says.


Although Arius did not accept Athanasius’ theory that the holy spirit was of the same substance as the Father, he did consider the spirit to be a person. This provides further proof that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Arians, for they share the Biblical view of the early Christians, namely, that the holy spirit is God’s active force, which he uses in many ways to accomplish his will. (Acts 5:32) True, there are passages in the Bible where the spirit is personified. But this proves nothing. Even A Catholic Dictionary admits: “Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. . . . We must not forget that the N[ew] T[estament] personifies mere attributes such as love (1 Cor. xiii. 4), and sin (Rom. vii. 11), nay, even abstract and lifeless things, such as the law (Rom. iii. 19), the water and the blood (1Jo 5:8 1 Jn. v. 8).” On the other hand, the Bible speaks of the spirit as being ‘poured out,’ and of people being “filled with holy spirit,” receiving the spirit as a “free gift,” and being ‘baptized in holy spirit,’ none of which would make sense if the holy spirit were a person.*—Acts 2:4, 17, 38; 4:31; John 1:33.


1984, September 1

Athough there are certainly differences between Arian, and Witness theology, perhaps the watchtower is a litte too insistent in disasscociation with Arian christology and seems to be rarely mentioned in Watchtower pubications. It is a lot closer to the truth than trinitarianism that is for sure.

 

[Artist77]

Interesting article from a 1959 Watchtower on Eusebius [who wrote "Church History"]

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1959727

Perhaps, but it appears that more was involved, for in his Ecclesiastical History he entirely ignores that Council; which he could only do by stopping his history with the year A.D. 324. Why stop a history of the (professed) Christian religion just prior to the most important event of the history’s last two hundred years? Only one reason can be adduced: he was not proud of the part he played at that Council. So he left it to other historians to record its proceedings, including his own speeches and lengthy explanation as to why he subscribed to the Nicene Creed. While because of that fact trinitarians like to claim Eusebius Pamphili as their own, at heart he had not changed; Jerome was right in terming him an avowed champion of Arianism

 

[Chloe]

The trinity comes from the same source as all false doctrine, Babylon. Highly recommend ’The two Babylons’ by Rev Alexander Hyslop. Explains everything.

 

[The God Pill]

I am going to post below some of the Watchtower's thoughts on Arius, which I found to be interesting:

Because the fourth-century dissident theologian Arius stated the Biblical truth that “the Son is not unbegotten,” and Jehovah’s Witnesses accept that truth, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “The Christology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, also, is a form of Arianism.” First, it must be stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a particular “Christology,” defined as “the theological interpretation of the person and work of Christ.” They share the view of the Christian layman who is recorded as having bluntly told the wrangling theologians assembled in Nicaea in 325 C.E.: ‘Christ did not teach us dialectics, art, or vain subtleties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith and good works.’ Apparently this man had suffered for his faith in Christ, even as many of Jehovah’s Witnesses have. Like him, they have no faith in theological philosophy. They accept with simplicity what the Bible states about God, Christ and the holy spirit, and they are willing to suffer for their simple faith and prove it by good works.

Secondly, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused of Arianism, inasmuch as they disagree with Arius’ views in many respects. For example, Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. The Bible teaches that the Son ‘fully knows’ the Father and that the Son is “the one that has explained him.” (Matthew 11:27; John 1:14, 18) Arius claimed that the Word became God’s Son “by adoption” because of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible says that he was created by Jehovah as his “only-begotten son.” (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14) Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him “the name that is above every other name.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Far from being modern-day Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe what the Bible says.


Although Arius did not accept Athanasius’ theory that the holy spirit was of the same substance as the Father, he did consider the spirit to be a person. This provides further proof that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Arians, for they share the Biblical view of the early Christians, namely, that the holy spirit is God’s active force, which he uses in many ways to accomplish his will. (Acts 5:32) True, there are passages in the Bible where the spirit is personified. But this proves nothing. Even A Catholic Dictionary admits: “Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. . . . We must not forget that the N[ew] T[estament] personifies mere attributes such as love (1 Cor. xiii. 4), and sin (Rom. vii. 11), nay, even abstract and lifeless things, such as the law (Rom. iii. 19), the water and the blood (1Jo 5:8 1 Jn. v. 8).” On the other hand, the Bible speaks of the spirit as being ‘poured out,’ and of people being “filled with holy spirit,” receiving the spirit as a “free gift,” and being ‘baptized in holy spirit,’ none of which would make sense if the holy spirit were a person.*—Acts 2:4, 17, 38; 4:31; John 1:33.


1984, September 1

Athough there are certainly differences between Arian, and Witness theology, perhaps the watchtower is a litte too insistent in disasscociation with Arian christology and seems to be rarely mentioned in Watchtower pubications. It is a lot closer to the truth than trinitarianism that is for sure.

Agreed 👍

First I want to apologize if I created confusion there are two Eusbesius the Caesarea and Nicomedia around at the same time. Nicomedia was Unitarian but not as extreme as the more radical portion of arians he did substantially support the Unitarian cause.

I can't quite say how far on the spectrum of Catholic Trinity v Unitarian Caeserea was yet but his church history shows he was at minimum not a trinitarian as it presents the son as created and subordinate as far as anything he might have write post Nicea the many recontexualizatons, speculation, and selective omissions in church history shows he didn't care much about truth. If I remember Caeserea did not like the trinitarian leaders as people and even prosecuted Athanasius once.

There is a lot that can be learnt on these figures from the 2nd-4th century from old watchtowers but they are not always objective or entirely honest of the first few centuries in part because articles are written with specific goals or purposes that differ from ones that overlap years apart. One article will appeal to the authority of "church father's" while another will attack the same individuals I've caught them making fun of Papias for example while omitting the background/context of the quote they used. Not a lot of other examples are in my head at the moment but I remember there were several others they were schizo on. Obviously that article was written in response to the accusations of the organization being modern Arians so they try to distance themselves in regard to there attitude in that excerpt while I can't say I've read much of Arius work I'm very skeptical of these adoptionist insinuations the society make on him in that watchtower I'm astonished they thought they could get away with that kind of misrepresentation.

There are only really two categories of unitarianism humanist/adoptionist (Jesus was either a very righteous man or a perfect man with no preexistence that god adopted) and Arianism albeit in a slightly broader sense than it's original use (Jesus is first creation made all other things) in the fourth century there was a position as well called semi arians that were a bit more moderate because a portion of Arians went too extreme in contrasting the son from the father with claims like Jesus was created ex nihlo (from nothing) and rejecting the semi Arian position that they were of similar but different substance (a loose/vague way of noting more of a similarity to the father than the other angels Jesus made as master worker) Jehovah's Witnesses aren't a 1:1 correspondence in beliefs to the Arian factions in the fourth century that were much closer to the truth than the Catholics but for most of history the label was used to denote a non humanist/adoptionist Unitarian that acknowledges what the scriptures say on his preexistence.

And yes it appears at least a portion of unitarians in the fourth century believed the holy spirit was a person but the Ufilas creed while phrased in a way that could suggest personhood made it clear whatever they thought the spirit was they did not see it as a god whether an unbegotten god or a lower case g begotten one in a relative sense. I have no firm positions or views on the spirit it has never been a matter of much direct research to me but I did intend to start a thread for discussion on it this weekend.

 

[The God Pill]

This interview on the topic of Arius is pretty balanced and civil with the exception of her repeated dismissal of the reality that Arius asserted the son is not co-eternal.

 

[kenmuldoon55]

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.

Great comment!

 

[The God Pill]

The trinity comes from the same source as all false doctrine, Babylon. Highly recommend ’The two Babylons’ by Rev Alexander Hyslop. Explains everything.

Yes the two babylons is probably the best resource for augmenting us in the ministry besides the Bible and org publications lot of witnesses made use of it back in the 60's and 70's.

 

[The God Pill]

Funny story about "Santa Claus" "saint" Nicholas was at the council of Nicea and is reported to have slapped or punched Arius and was subsequently detained briefly where he apparently might have had hallucinations of Jesus and Mary in his cell. Yep you can joke to people about Santa Claus assaulting people at the council.

 

[The God Pill]

Watched this debate a week ago. Dale Tuggy vs. a Catholic on if Tertullian was trinitarian or not Tuggy is a "biblical" unitarian some denomination that's in the preexistence denying faction of unitarianism but he argues that the man was a quasi Arian unitarian.

 

[The God Pill]

I wouldn't recommend this guy's later videos or some of their odd ideas but these two are pretty good in showing how creation ex nihilo as a concept emerged from a few second century branches of gnosticism and Ireneus and later early Christians adopted it as they did not discern the source. The promotion of creation ex nihlo concept over older alternatives is one factor that contributed to the Trinity doctrine as it was gradually developed in it's last few phases in the fourth century.

 

[kenmuldoon55]

I wouldn't recommend this guy's later videos or some of their odd ideas but these two are pretty good in showing how creation ex nihilo as a concept emerged from a few second century branches of gnosticism and Iraneus and later early Christians adopted it as they did not discern the source. The promotion of creation ex nihlo concept over older alternatives is one factor that contributed to the Trinity doctrine as it was gradually developed in it's last few phases in the fourth century.

E=mc squared nicely sums up the whole dilemma of creation namely matter from energy.