Yet another one to refute

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joclucsylv

Guest
Seems like I am always doing this, but the good side is that I am learning!! I need to refute this writing from a Oneness minister. It is long so will take more than one post. To the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches the Athanasian Creed has become the official statement of faith for the doctrine of the Trinity.

This document is of anonymous origin and authorship. Appearing, according to some, as late as the reign of Charlemagne, when in A. D. 800, Haito, Bishop of Basel, exacted that the “Faith of Athanasius” (The Athanasian Creed) be learned by priests and recited every Sunday; or, as early as the fourth Council of Toledo (A.D. 633). (The Creed is also known as Quicunque vult - from the first two Latin words, “whosoever would.”) One thing is certain: the Creed was not written by Athanasius! The second part of the Creed (lines 29-44) recalls the decision and wording of the Council of Chalcedon (the fourth ecumenical council held in the city of Chalcedon A.D. 451), and Athanasius had died 78 years earlier, in 373. Furthermore, the Creed gives evidence of being framed in Latin, while Athanasius was a Coptic Christian from Alexandria Egypt. By all respected accounts, the origin of the Creed seems to be Gallic, not Egyptian. There is no doubt that the name Athanasius was given to the Creed to add an air of respectability.

This forging of names to Trinitarian documents was a far too common practice during the formative years of the Trinitarian doctrine for the practice to have been one of innocence. It is interesting to the student of Church history that the doctrine of the Trinity, as held by the Catholic and Protestant churches, is not taught in the Bible, nor do their scholars seek to find it there. Of the two (most likely) Trinitarian proof text in the entire Bible (namely, Matthew 28:19 and First John 5:7) one is totally discredited (i.e. First John 5:7) as being spurious, and the other (i.e. Matthew 28:19) has red flags all over it. Eusebius of Caesarea (fourth century A.D.) quotes from Matthew 28:19 some eighteen times in his writings which are extant, and not once does he mention the terms “Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The scholars are agreed that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew and that Eusebius had access to Matthew’s Hebrew text in the famous library in Caesarea. After the library mysteriously burned only the Greek texts, that were commissioned by Emperor Constantine I remained; wherein is found, exclusively, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit phrase. Most modern scholars concur that Matthew 28:19 does not give the true words of Jesus (nor of Matthew’s autograph for that matter); but are a reflection of later churchmen, who were attempting to posture Christianity in a less offensive image before a world that was steeped in anti-Semitism. Removing the name of Jesus (a Jewish name) from the Great Commission and replacing it with the generic titles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit went a long way toward this aim.
 
Without the support of Holy Scripture the harbingers of the new orthodoxy formed the creeds as their bulwark of the new doctrine - called the Trinity. Thus, the creeds became their authoritative “scripture” originating after the apostolic era.

According to J.N.D. Kelly, the older, and original, orthodoxy of the church was Modalism. (See Kelly: Ancient Christian Creeds.) Modalism (Oneness) was being replaced in the imperial church with a theology which struck a compromise between the modalist position and subordinationism (the position that the Word was subordinate to the Father); this new doctrine became known as trinitarianism.

The evidence is clear that trinitarianism was established, not by the Holy Scripture, but, by three creeds that have been widely accepted in the Western Church. These three creeds are: 1. The Nicene Creed, 2. The Apostles Creed, and 3. The Athanasian Creed. All three of these creeds share the dubious characteristic of not being what they claim. For instance: the instrument calling itself the “Nicene Creed” is actually an edited version of the “Creed of Nicaea” A very different document. The “Creed of Nicaea” (A.D. 325), also known as the Creed of The 318, for the number of bishops who signed the document, was a strong Modalist document with the “homoousia” clause (homoousia means: same essence, nature, substance or being); plus an anathema for anyone who affirmed separate “ousia” (essence, nature, being, or substance) for the Father and the Son; The Creed of Nicaea (The 318) had no mention of the Holy Spirit as being distinct from the Father and the Son. However, the creed known as the Nicene Creed was actually formulated in Constantinople in A.D. 381 where the anathema was removed and the paragraph concerning the Holy Spirit was added. (Athanasius, the great champion of the Creed of Nicaea (The 318) was now dead - by eight years - and could not raise his voice against the deed. It was this modified creed that was endorsed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In addition to the reconstruction at Constantinople, the Creed underwent further revisions at the Council of Toledo in A.D. 589 (this council is not recognized by the Eastern Church), where the so-called filioque clause was introduced. When Constantinople added a paragraph on the Holy Spirit it had said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only; the Toledon edition stated that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ( Latin: procedit a patre filioque
 
Therefore, the Creed recited in churches all over the world which professes to be the Nicene Creed is not what it claims.

Second. The Apostles Creed, which professes to be a document formed by the apostles before departing Jerusalem for their missionary journeys is in fact derived directly from the creed of the schismatic Roman church of the first antipope, Hippolytus (third century A.D.). Hippolytus was a schismatic bishop of Rome who was in opposition to Calixtus: the Modalist Bishop of Rome who was the rightful prelate and defender of the original orthodoxy against Hippolytus. Hippolytus was the harbinger of a new theology (J.N.D. Kelly, Ancient Christian Creeds).

The Apostles Creed as used today is substantially the same as the formulation of Hippolytus’s baptismal statement recorded in The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. The Creed recited as the Apostles Creed is not what it claims. Hippolytus would be proud – the apostles would be grieved.

And finally, The Athanasian Creed, which is the crowning statement on the Trinity, is not the work of Athanasius at all. Athanasius was a Coptic Christian from Alexandria Egypt. In A.D. 325, as a deacon, he accompanied Bishop Alexander (as Bishop Alexander’s Secretary) to the Nicene Council. Bishop Alexander was a Modalist who spoke of God in terms that many historians have considered Sabellianism. (Sabellus was an influential Modalist teacher of 100 years earlier.) At the Council in Nice, Turkey Athanasius defended the orthodox view of God and Christ against Arius and his subordinationist view of Jesus. The Council presented the word “homoousia” as the watchword for orthodoxy. Homoousia means: same essence, being, or substance. This very word had been used by the Modalist for over 100 years and was widely understood to be a word which expressed the Modalist theology. (Paul of Samosata was excommunicated by a council of subordinationist over this self-same word 65 years earlier - A.D. 269). The Council of Nicaea had chosen the strongest possible word at their disposal to emphasize the oneness of the Father and the Son.) The Council of 318 bishops understood the absolute Modalist tone of the Creed they formulated. Many, it would be safe to say - most, of the bishops were uncomfortable with the word “homoousia” and would much preferred “homoiousia”( a like substance, essence, being). This would be evident in the coming years
 
and would bring the church to the compromise known as the Trinity. However, it is important to recognize that Athanasius remained a champion of the homoousia theology throughout the troubled years - even to the point of exile on numerous occasions - and remained so until death.

Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 328, upon the death of his Modalist bishop - Alexander. Athanasius, himself, fell into disfavor with the Emperor and through the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea was exiled from his See, as well as were other Modalist prelates, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Estathius of Antioch. (Eusebius had not agreed with the “homoousia” clause. He much favored “homoiousia” being, himself a friend of Arius, and accepting, as he did, the doctrine of subordinationism. In a letter written pre-Nicaea to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (the Bishop of Athanasius) Eusebius writes: “The Son Himself, indeed,is certainly God; but not true God.” [This letter was quoted in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea - A.D. 787] Eusebius was known historically as a semi-Arian.) In all, Athanasius was exiled from Alexandria four times and replace by Arian bishops. Of the 45 years of his episcopate he spent 17 1/2 years in exile. In later years Athanasius wrote in his memoirs(Letter on the Council of Nicaea - A.D. 350-351) concerning the identity of the Word with the Father, “ The generation of the Son from the Father is otherwise than that of which accords with the nature of men; and he is not only like, but is in fact inseparable from the substance of the Father. He and the Father are indeed one, as he did say himself; and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as is the way of radiance in relation to light. The term itself indicates this: and the Council, so understanding the matter, did well, therefore, when it wrote homoousios, so that it might defeat the perverseness of the heretics, while proclaiming that the word is other than created things.” As the intrepid the defender of the Nicene faith, Athanasius was called “The Pillar of the Church” by Gregory of Nazianzus.

During one exile in the year or 339 Athanasius was given refuge in Rome by the then Bishop Julius I. He was joined there by Marcellus of Ancyra, another famous Modalist of the time. Marcellus was deposed by the same forces that had exiled his friend Athanasius: namely, Eusebius of Caesarea and the semi-Arian crowd. (See Britannica Macropaedia Ready Reference(Reference Eusebius of Caesarea.)
 
We have presented the above information on Athanasius for a particular purpose. Let us recap: he was a deacon of a Modalist bishop, namely Alexander of Alexandria; he was a lifelong champion of the Nicene “homoousia” clause; suffered exile four times for his doctrinal position; shared the ire of Eusebius with Marcellus of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Antioch because of his Godhead beliefs. All of this is more than a whisper from the pages of history that Athanasius the Coptic Christian bishop of Alexandria Egypt was himself a Modalist who spent 17 1/2 years in exile rather than say Jesus was a being LIKE the Father. His position was clear: Jesus and the Father are ‘homoousia” - the same essence, nature, substance or being.

Again, until the 17th century the Christian world was lied to concerning the Athanasian Creed. They were told that it was the work of Athanasius. Historical research has proven that false. Athanasius’ name was forged to a document that his theology would have never supported. This creed strikes a compromise between the true positions of Athanasius and his enemy Eusebius of Caesarea and recognizes a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that Athanasius never did nor never would. It must be stated that every document presented by trinitarianism to establish the legitimacy of the Trinity has been a forgery: see for example First John 5:7, The Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, (quite possibly Matthew 28:19), and most definitely the Athanasian Creed.

Church Militant has offered me some ammunition via pm!! I would appreciate more if anyone has any!! Thank you!!
 
The Catholic doctrine of a Trinity proved by above an hundred short and clear arguments expressed in the terms of the Holy Scripture, compared after a manner entirely new … with a few reflections … upon some of the Arian writer, particularly Dr. S. Clarke; to which is added a letter to the common people in answer to some popular argument against the Trinity (1820)
archive.org/details/catholicdoctrine00joneuoft
 
If the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is false you are faced with the problem of explaining the origin of Christ’s teaching about His heavenly Father which is inextricably related to the account of His life, death and Resurrection as well as the origin of a worldwide institution which has lasted for two thousand years and is the basis of the values of modern civilisation. By their fruits you shall know them…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top