posted 07-19-1999 09:49 AM            

In the past I know some have presented the down side of the ANF "church fathers". While I do not necessarly dissagree, it is not to say that all they wrote and though was "for lost". For example, is their concepts on Messiahology. Below are some very interesting quotes that, if anything, should make one ponder.

First, I MUST apologize for the vulgar language contained within. I chose NOT to make the words of the authors quoted more maliable for the very fact I believe it is wrong to change what another has said. I apologize for any minor errors right now! Anyhow, I personally do not affirm, nor support, nor practice the use of foreign names. "Viewer discression is advised". A personal note is that I do not SUPPORT or NOT SUPPORT anything said in here. These are not my ideas or thoughts. I may agree, dissagree, or both to certain claims made. Again, these are quotes from the ANF taken from a couple sources that I have. The authors I obtained the info from are mostly not of the Athanasius breed (though some are trinitarians), so the quotes below are MAINLY of the "Messiah is not the father" breed, though they should not be discredited for this. These quotes still exist...

Things to remember when discussing extra-Biblical source:
1.) They are NOT scritpure, only commentary. Thus their weight is only for affirmation of a scripturally built position, and not to form doctrine.
2.) There is some tampering of the church fathers. Ignatius' works are an example, while those og Origen are another. Even more, some parts of their works are often found missing. Also, the views expressed in the Ante-Nicene church fathers is (mostly) a Gentile-Greek-Western position. This bias/mindset can not be ignored.
3.) The early church fathers, it is admitted by almost all, have been contaminated by some extent by western (e.g. platonic) concepts, and their technical terms are evidence of this. Many are noted as to having been philosphers and/or theologians before coming to "faith". As it is said though, "How much of their doctrines were formed from biblical sources and how many were formed by extra-biblical sources is debated. There is no denying that both played at least minor roles". As there is no concensus as to how much each father was persueded by either source (and each varying between eachother), the only suggestion that can be given is to test their ideas upon the backbone of all the scritpures.

Authors quoted:
• The Didakhe (a)
• Clement (b)
• Ignatius (c)
• Justin Martyr (d)
• Irenaeus (e)
• Theophilus (f)
• Clement of Alexandria (g)
• Turtullian (h)
• Athenagoras (i)
• Hippolytus (j)
• Novatian (k)
• Origen (l)

Things to note in quotes: Most will note some of the quotes below are at direct ends with the Nicene creeds. Also, you will also note that the early fathers often did not agree. For example, some of the church fathers make it clear it was Messiah who appeared to Môšeh (especially Justin Martyr), while some (like Irenaeus) say it was the father. Almsot every Ante-Nicene father applies the Wisdom (châkhmâh) of Prov 8 as being Messiah less Irenaeus who applies it to the Rûwach haQôdeš. The unbalance can be seen met in the fact some early followers called the Rûach, "Wisdom". On the subject of the Rûwach, some of the early fathers omitt almost all refernce to it at all (within the concept of being "theos").

That said, I have not posted these to determine the "correct" or "incorrect" views of the early fathers. I am posting this to establish the fact certain concepts were not foreign nor alien to the early father, but instead taught as basic truths. Some of these are:

1.) Messiah was not the father, but instead distinct
2.) Messiah was not equal to the father, but subordinate
3.) Messiah was created and begotten

These are all scriptural positions (whether they are true and accurate - that is for your own descision making) that are sounded off by many of the early "believers".

The following is mostly from the book, "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible translation".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Subordinationist view of the Ante-Nicean fathers:

• The Didakhe -

...adds nothing to the biblical expression regarding baptism, and simply states that they should "baptize in the name of the Father the name of the Son and of the Holy spirit in living water" (7:1). *p. 113.

• Clement -

Clement, the Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter around 100 CE wherein he said, "Let all nations know thee, that though art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy child" (59:4; ANF 1, p. 113). Clement did not say that Jesus should be worshipped; rather, he said, "Let us reverence [entrepô] the Lord Jesus Christ" (21:6). *p. 113-114.

• Ignatius -

Ignatius wrote an epistle at the beginning of the second century. In this latter to the Romans (Introduction), he twice refers to, "Jesus Christ our God," but just before this he spoke of, "The Most High Father, and of Jesus Christ his only Son." In 3:3 he again speaks of, "our God Jesus Christ". In his letter to the Smyrnaeans (1:1), he said, "I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise" and in his letter to Polycarp (8:3) he speaks of, "our God Jesus Christ".

However, in his epistle to the Magnesians he differentiates between the Father and the Son "Before the ages he was with [para] the Father" (6:1). He also says that the Son "came forth from (apo) the one Father and is with (ies) one and departed to the one" (7:2). One modern church historian says about Ignatious that "never held that the Father suffered, nor did he confuse the Son and Father". *p. 114.

• Justin Martyr -

(110-165 CE) Stated the following when discussing the importance of the baptism: "For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, and then recieve the washing with water" (ANF 1, p. 183). About Jesus he further stated, "We reasonably worship him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third" (ANF 1, p.166). However, in the same book Justin said that good angels and the Spirit also are worshipped by the Christians (ANF 1, p. 164. A footnote says this about including the angels in worship" "This is the literal and obvious translation of Justin's words. But from c.13, 16 and 61 it is evident that he did not desire to incluide the worship of angels.")

In chapter 128 in Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Jesus is called both "God the son of God" and "Angel". In both chapters 61 and 129 he quotes Proverbs 8:22, "The Lord created [or, 'made,' chapter 61] me the beginning of his ways for his works." The difference between Jesus Christ and God, in the eyes of Justin, was well as the subordingation of Jesus, is clearly stated in the two following quote:

The Scriptures has delcared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and tht that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admitt (ANF 1, p. 264).

I say that there is, and is said to be, another God and Lord, subject to [or, according to the footnote, 'going away, departed'] the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because he announces to men whatever the Maker of all things-above whom there no other God-wishes to announce to them... He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God is distinct from hom who made all things,-numerically I mean, not [distinct] in will" (AND 1, p. 223). *p. 114-115.

"Then I replied, 'I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them.... I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not[distinct] in will.'" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223, brackets in original.) (Obtained from the WWW).

• Irenaeus -

(c. 130-220 CE) differentiated between Jesus as theos, and the Father: "No other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, 'I am that I am' . . . and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord" (ANF 1, pp. 330, 419). He also wrote, "There is one God, the Father over all, and one Word of God, who is through all" (ANF 1, p. 546). *p. 115.

• Theophilus -

(116-181 CE) also believed that the Logos, in a way, was produced:

But when God wished to make all that he determined to do, He begot his Word, uttered, "the firstborn of all creation (ANF 2, p. 103). *p. 115.

God, then, having his own Logos internal within His own bowels, begot Him emitting Him along with his own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him (ANF 2, p. 98). *p. 116.

• Clement of Alexandria -

(150-215 CE) called Jesus "God and creator" (ANF 2, p. 234). However, in the same book he quotes Jesus' words from Matthew 19:17, that just one is good, namely, God. He then says that "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus is good" (ANF 2, p. 227). He spoke about "the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One." A few lines later he says about the Son, "To Him is placed in subjection all the hosts of angels and gods; He, the powerfull Word, exhibiting the holy administration for Him who put [all] in subjection to him" (ANF 2, p. 524). *p. 116.

• Tertullian -

(160-230 CE) was a philospher, lawyer and theologian. He was the first to use the Latin word trinitas, but the meaning he ascribed to the word was completely different from the one it came to have in the last part of the fourth century. According to him the word was a person in the sense of a being numerically different from the Father and subordinate to him:

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons who are yet distinct On frm Another. These Three are one essence not in Person, as it is said, "I and the Father are one" in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number" (ANF 3, p. 621). *p. 116.

In the rest of the chapter he quotes many passages from the Bible showing that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings, and that the Father is the God even of the Son (ANF 3, pp. 600, 602). In the same book, at the end of chapter 4, the expresion "two different Beings" is used, and at the end of chapter 7 he writes, "While I recognize the Son, I assert his distinction as second to the Father." In chapter 9 he states:

For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I"... Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, inasmuch as he who begets is One, and He who is begotten is another; He too, who sends is one, and He who is sens is another, and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another" (ANF 3, p. 604). *p. 117.

Tertullian even said that the "father" was not an eternal designation of God:

"He [God the Father] has not always been Father and Judge, merely of the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been Father previous to the Son, nor Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin exhisted with Him, nor his Son" (ANF 3, p. 478). *p. 117.

• Athenagoras -

(late second century CE) expressed that Logos was a work, but in accordance with more detail that we will see later, he also believed the Logos was eternal: "I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existance (for from the beinning, God, who is the etneral [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]" (ANF 2, p. 133). He calls Jesus "God" but he does no use this word of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit Himself, also, which operates in the prophets, we asser to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back like a beam of the sun" (ANF 2, p. 133). *p. 117.

• Hippolytus -

(170-236 CE) viewed the Logos as one who was brought forth by the Father, but also was theos:

Therefore this solitay and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflexion, brought forth the Logos first, not the word in the sense of being articulate by voice, but as a retinociation of the universe concieved and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from the exhisting things . . . The Logos alone of this God is God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God" (ANF 5, pp. 150, 151). *p. 118.

• Novatian -

(210-280 CE) composed a book on the trinity wherein he wrote, among other things, the following: "For Scriptures as much as announces Christ as also God, as it anounces God himself as man" (ANF 5, p. 620). Jesus Christ, however, was not equal with the Father:

Yet he obtained this from the Father that he should be both God of all and should be Lord, and be begotten and made known from Himself as God, in the form of God the Father. . . . Whence it is proved that the claim of a certain divinity would be robberym to wit, that of equalling Himself with God the Father. . . . for who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, concsequently to the Son, "Let us make man in our image and likeness" (ANF 5, p. 633, 636). *p. 118.

After thisa we find fitfteen quotes from the Bible to prove that Jesus Christ is different from the Father. Latin in the same book he points to the fact that Paul and Apollos are different "persons" (ANF 5, p. 637-638). In a similar view he says concerning Jesus: "In recieving, then, sanctification from the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Now, consequently, who is inferior to the Father, is not the Father, but the son" (ANF 5, p. 638). *p. 119.

• Origen -

(185-255 CE) probably was the most learned and influential of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Prestige writes:

Origen insisted most emphatically in the distinct and concrete individuality of the Son, and stressed no less the godhead from all created beings. He nevertheless premitted himself to utter some extraordinary string statements of the subordinations of the Spirit and the Logos" (God in Patristic Though; p. 132). *p. 119.

Origen's importaqnt writing De Principiis is extent for the most part in a Latin translation by Rufinus. Rufinus was against Arianism (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God; p. xvii) and admits he alters some passages from Origen's work. Emporer Justin, who wanted to prove that Origen was a heretic, quoted, in his letter to Menna, passages about Jesus Christ from the Greek version of De Principiis (The Doctrine of the Trinity; p. 89). If these quotes are genuine, then they show that Origen held to a string subordination view:

Now this the Son is begotten of the will of the Father, who is the image of the invisible God, and the effluence of His glory, the representation of His substance (hupostaseos), the firstborn of all creation, a creature (ktisma), Wisdom. For Wisdom herself says, "God created [ektise) me as the beginning of his ways unto His works" (The Doctrine of the Trinity; p. 92). *p. 119.

Jesus Christ is to be worshiped but not in the same manner as the Father:

Accordingly, we worship with all our power the one God, and His only Son, the word and the Image of God, by prayer and supplication; and we offer our petitions to the God of the universe through his only-begotten Son" (ANF 4, p. 644) *p. 119-120.

Origen could speak of Jesus as a "second God" (Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561.), but he added a qualification: "We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God." (Origen, Dial Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 231.) (Obtained from the WWW).

In what sense are they ‘one’? "And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will." (Origen, Against Celsus 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644.) (Obtained from the WWW).

Other intersting statements about the fathers from scholars:
------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the relation between the Father and the Son, we can summerize this section with a quote from Hanson:

With the excpetion of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordination at least up to the year 355l subordination might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of god; p. xix). *p. 120.
>
From one point of view, it is wrong to say that the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed in the Son's eternal generation. Strictly speaking, they did not believe that the Son was eternal, but the reason of God, from which the Son came forth (or was articulated), was eternal (E.J. Fortman, the Trinune God, p. 50, writes: "If Gof must have His Logos from eternity, must we also have His Son? Later theology and dogma say yes unequivocally, but the apologists are not quite clear on this point and rather seem to say no. For them, id the origination of Logos from God is eternal, the generation of the Logos as Son seems rather to be pre-creational but no eternal, and it is affected by the will of the Father".) *p. 121
>

There is an entire section on the conept of the eternal Logos and the platonic, neo-platonic, etc... concepts that are unmistakable in some of their views. Good stuff.

Anyhow, going over the passages from the ANF, here is a rough outline of some (not all) of the beliefs presented:

-The father is alone [theos] or the Almighty / is the true [theos] : b,d,e,g,
-Messiah was [theos]: c,d,e,g,i,j,k,
-The father is Messiah's [theos] : g,h,
-The father alone is good ('theos alone is good') : g,
-Messiah called Angel : d,

-Messiah should be worshipped : d,
-Messiah should be reverenced : b,

-Messiah was creator : g
-Messiah aided in creation : h,
-The father is creator : d,f,h,

-There is none above the father / father above all / most high : c,d,e,j,
-Messiah subject/under to the father : d,h,k,
-Messiah is #2 or in second place : d,k,l.

-Messiah is the father's child/son : b,c,d,e,f,
-Messiah is begotten of the father/[theos] : d,f,h,i,k,l.
-Messiah was made/created : d,[h],j,k,l (called creature).
-Messiah was created before everything else : d,

-The father/son are numerically distinct : d,h,l.
-Distinguishes clearly between the father and son (in below sorces) : b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l.

Gives you a good look how the early "fathers" thought and struggled with the issues at hand. A lot of these enigma's are not only their problem though, as many are scriptural dilemmas. Some even portray both ends of the problem. There does seem though, a defined stream of thought that slowly progresses to the later Nicene creeds. Though it is probably safe to say many, if not all, of the above names did not agree with what went down in 325 CE.

Hope you guys enjoy chewing on.

Šâlôwm b'YHWH - Joshua Luna

The * mark means that the quote is from "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation"

posted 07-21-1999 02:02 AM            

Now that everyone has had a bit to chew on these quotes, any comments?

I am interested in seeing what those who uphold either oneness or the trinity think. The fact that the word trinity was not introdcued until Tertullian (160-230 CE; though his "triad" was not of the Nicene vein, having said that there was a time that the father was not a father and that the son was created) should raise some interesting questions. Also, the resounding ommision of the creation/subjection/ordinal differentiation of the Messiah to the father within the above quotes is also surprising and has equally large impacts on the trinitarian and oneness doctrines.

I am not attacking any one doctrine (or any person(s)). I do, on the otherhand though, find it disturbing that the church fathers are used as a resounding arguement for the trinity doctrine which now appears not to even be a clear consensus until Athanasius.

I am not saying that the church fathers are authoritative, nor am I saying they even have any truth at all. But, as the trinity doctrine is most clearly established within the route of their tradition (i.e. the Nicene/post-Nicene fathers) and established as unquestioned truth, I am curious how this is resolved? Are they all heritics?

posted 07-21-1999 04:13 PM            

Hello Joshua Luna,

I'm not sure if you read my thread about differences amongst the early Messiah-movement, but it explains how the stark contrast between Unitarians and Trinitarians existed right up until the 7th. century (when most unitarians embraced Islam). The struggle I believe has been between the "Official Trinitarianist Church" of Rome, and those smaller groups who adhered to the original teachings of the Messiah (peace and blessings of our Creator be upon him). Most of them had different gospels to the Official Church, and these were banned and considered heretical (many of them were in Hebrew and Aramaic too, as well as Gothic and other languages which the Romans virtually rendered extinct). Their practises, which were much more Judaic, were also banned, and many of them were persecuted along with Jews and Muslims, considered sects of these 2 religions rather than followers of the Messiah (pbuh) which Rome herself claimed to be.

As I said in my thread, there was from the very beginning two very different religions, both claiming to inherit the teachings of Messiah (pbuh) and both teaching a different Messiah, but names weren't the dividing factor, trinitarianism versus unitarianism was.

Peace,

[i]shlameal[ite].

posted 07-22-1999 04:51 AM            

No, I have not read your thread on the issue. I will have a look at it when I get back. I did a search to find it and came up empty. What was the name of the thread?

Anyhow, I am familar with many of the early assemblies and what they thought. The issue is not as cut and dry as you may indicate. Specifically, if you mean unitarian in the sense of what is taught in the Qur`an, I would totally dissagree. By far, the mass majority of early groups (as well as the NT texts themselves) -- excluding the trinitarians -- still agreed about the 1.) pre-exhistance of Messiah 2.) his special and unique son-ship with YHWH 3.) his aid in creation 4.) his role in the impending judgement. From my studies (school and personal) and discussing the issue with Islamic friends, all 4 ideas are denied by the Qur`an.

Possibly the only exception could be the Ebonites, but that still remains to be fully proven. It has even been suggested the Evoniym were an offshoot of the N'tsariym. If the N'tsariym represent the early Jerusalem assembly, then the later Evoniym represent a later redactional tradition - probably influenced by the pains the NT testimony caused and the confrentations is drew with many of the Yahudiym. The fact the N'tsariym are early attested to to having the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew extent, while the Ebonite version is said to be heavily altered would indicate the Ebonites were the later offshoot. There are many reasons for this, one being the fact the 3 Hebrew Matthews that were passed down through the generations in Jewish hands (Shem Tob, du Tillet, Munster) all are in high-agreeability of the Greek, demonstrating areas where the Greek made errors from the Hebrew. Also, the fact the early NT followers were called N'tsariym (Acts 24:5) and NOT Evoniym is another clear indication that they did not represent the thoughts of the apostles.

I also noticed that you questioned (in the Rabbi post) the date of authorship of some of the NT. For example, you specifaclly questioned the gospel of John and its authorship before 70 CE. As you may or may not know, up until maybe 50 years ago John was thought to have been a mid to late 2nd century writing (if not later) that expressed much later ideas and theological developments. The problem with this is obvious though: With the fact such mss (like P52 aka John Rylands P457) that indicate a very early date for John (this ms dates as early as 70 CE, though most likely ~125 CE) such ideas are broken. Even with a date of 125 CE for P52 (which is almost certain not to be the original), this shatters the concept that it was a mid to late 2nd century (150-200 CE; if not later) composition. Simply put, to base that composition dates of the NT based soley on the theological content (or the fact not as many early mss have been found) is almost absurd. This is the same kind of attacks the Tanakh underwent until the DSS were unearthed. The fact they are so close -- even with a 1000 year gap -- shocked the scholastic community. The same will be (and has been) with the NT writings. The fact that the Pauline letters are not questioned per date shows the chasm within the scholastic community. There is not a single letter of his thought to be composed after 70 CE. Yet while the gospel of John is pushed back in date due to theological content, the Pauline literature is thought to be early -- the fact Paul himself states clearly a high theology is ignored.

On the name issue from the ANCF, I am thinking of a few quotes from them that make it clear that the name was an issue to them. Justin voices these opinions:

quote:

---

And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless deity spoke to Moses. (I Apol., 63)

---

quote:

---

For no one can utter the name of the ineffable deity; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. (I Apol.,61)

---

If I remember correctly, this is the result of some coming to immerse in a "name", though Justin himself does allude to the fact that immersion was in the, "name of theos, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, and then recieve the washing with water" (ANF 1, p. 183). Justin also says:

quote:

---

But to the father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name he be called, he has as his elder the person who gives him the name. But these words, Father, and Deity, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names but appelations derived from good deeds and functions. (II Apol., 6)

---

Justin then, on various ocasions, speaks of the "ineffable" and "unutterable" Deity and Father (See II Apol., 10, 13; Trypho, 126,127)

Jerome states a similar sentiment by also stating that the creator does not have a name, but instead lists 10 titles for him.

So, the "name" issue is not a null point with the early fathers as you indicate. The reason they did not debate it continually will be seen below...

Anyhow, as for the name NOT being an issue, I take that as being a completely errant comment. To say names were not a dividing factor is just not true. The above quotes show the HARD stance such early beleivers as Justin had already taken. Such HARSH rebukes only come in the face of a view to the contrary that is equally pushed. If the Jews were teaching the "nameless diety", and the pagans had this "nameless" diety going to (i.e. platonic concepts) then that leaves the Jewish-Christians as the only people Justin debated who COULD BE teaching that the creator had a name! Anyhow, it is about equally as true to say that the Shabbath or the Feasts of YHWH were not a factor, or that the foods one eat were not a factor. The reason many have a problem with these issues that the chasm had already been drawn very early in the assembly. By the time you read the ANCF you are getting one side of the story. If you were to read the OTHER side of the story it would be abundantly clear it was an issue of division. It is unfortunate very little work is left from around 70 CE to 200 CE - let alone more works from the Jewish-Christians.

The large picture is really missed when discussing the name and the post-Apostolic followers. Most miss the fact the destruction of the temple and the exile of the Jews was the ending of one era and the dawn of another. For example, some of the changes that underwent after this time that resulted in such DRASTIC changes, like the removal of the name from the text are are:

1.) The Jews had ceased to use the name.
2.) The followers of Yahushua went from being predomintly of the Israelite type to the Goyim type.
3.) The Jewish-believers were completely ostrasized.
4.) The Gentiles did not understand the name...
...a. they erroniously read it as PIPI or HEHE
...b. they undertook platonic concepts that the creator did not have a name
5.) The strong and early movement to remove anything "Jewish" regardless of its biblical establishment was well underway. The virtues of shabbath keeping, feast keeping, hate of images, Torah readings on Shabbath, and yes-- use of the sacred name-- were all concepts that did not mesh well with the strongly hellenistic church fathers. The fact that as early as the early-mid second century Polycarp was the lone advocate, as he calls it, "The ways in which the Apostles taught" in refernce to keeping the Passover should indicate how strong this flow was and how different it was to what the Apostles taught. But this is NOT a surprise as false teachings ewre strong even when the Apostles were present. The fact they GREW after they died should NOT be a surprise. The fact by the time Justin Martyr began preaching the Shabbath was a fring practice, etc... should clearly demonstrate how quickly things "changed".
6.) Early in Christian development the name was removed from the NT texts, instead the "missing link" of nomina sacra appear (after the 9th century completely removed by the full forms kurios, theos, etc...). This, along with MASSIVE variants in name placement in the NT clealry indicate a change occured.
7.) The LXX and Peshitta Tanakh from around the early second century to the late 3rd century had the name YHWH removed (though some of the Peshitta Tanakh was found to have the name as late as the 6th century). This is a clear indication of WHY the Peshitta NT is so much more consistant in name placement and the use of Mâryâ' for YHWH consistantly (though not perfect).

The clear line of events is quite simple. It all starts with the lay folks. If more and more are Goyim and have no background in the OT or are being taught by hellenists they are gaurenteed NOT to have any knowledge of the name. How many centuries was the bible kept away from beleivers? A lot. How long did it take for a reformation? A lot. How long did it take for the establishment of large Shabbath leeping groups? A lot. Even simple truths take time to win back those who seek truth. Now imagine those IGNORANT of these issues altogether; they plainly would be confused by the issue if they ever heard of it, which they probably did not (re: the hellenistic teachers). Also remember, it is a HUGE mistake to think of these people as the "righteous gentiles" (i.e. gentiles who were familar with YHWH and his sacred books) that were more common place in the "stable" early-first century. So, by the end of the 1st century you have Hebrew/Tanakh/Judaic/etc. ignorant believers who could not READ the name. If they were so ignorant as to have no clue what it was, why would they even use it? The fact they were lead by staunch hellenists with such absurd/unscriptural concepts such as "Hen" had no name IN HAND with the fact they had a strong distaste for anything Judaic draws the perfect growing grounds for such changes. When they were removing other scriptural practices the use of the name went right along with it. Heck, we have proof they removed it from the LXX. The fact that we start to see that in the middle of the 2nd century and early third century the name YHWH was REMOVED from the LXX fragments left to us indicates it was not a first century practice, but that of the predominantly Goyim assembly of later years. Even more, they would only remove it if it a.) was an issue of contest within the differing groups b.) they were not teaching new believers about its important and wished to remove all oddities (like PIPI).

Also, the reason you do not see the issue argued as feverantly, as say, the trinity, is the result of many things. First, as I said, the complete ban within non-Messiah believing Judaism had hit full swing (this is why in the 6-7th century Mohammed knew NOT of the name YHWH, even though he knew many Jews). If the practice was accepted by the Jews, the Gentiles who were already unfamilar with the name and already shunning Jewish practices had no reason to use the name or debate it. It is hard for my kid brother to debate organic chemistry with me when he can hardly add and has no idea what an atom is! In contrast, a child who is raised by nuclear technicians will by the age of 5 already know what an atom, proton, nueron, electron, and probably what a quark is! A lot has to be said about environment, training, etc... The Gentiles who lived in the time after the destruction of the Temple were at a clear disadvantage, especially when the hellenistic leaders started to come into power with an aim to distance themselves from Judaism.

A comparable example of where the amount of attention the name issue recieved is viewable when dealing with the Shabbath issue. About the extent of discussions on the Shabbath deal with the heritics that practice it. You must wonder! Such a key and central practice to the Bible that Messiah even considered to be passed on past his death (his prophecy about the fear of the abomination of desolation falling on a Shabbath) that so quietly falls to naught MUST bring into question the key - yet hidden - dealings between the end of the Apostolic age and the rise of what later became the life blood of the Roman empire. Anyhow, the retractions made about Shabbath worshippers are the same things said early on about those who use the name (see Justin quote). Even more, as much of the discussion on Shabbath was indirect and aimed at showing the supoeriority of the 8th day, the same is true in the name debate as the name of Messiah is fueled as being central, while the name YHWH is plainly ignored. And if the Jewish-Christians were using the name it would make little difference. They were so small and isolated by the advent of the hellenistic-Bishops that what little they had to say was drowned out. It has everything to do with numbers and power and less to do with scriptural authority. From the time of the Roman persicution to the lift of the Roman persicution that saw the eastablishment of a universal "faith" we see two completely different brands of "Christianity".

On the other hand, the trinity was staunchly debated because it was an open issue of interest that was not supressed. There was nothing "Jewish" that had to do with discussions of the "theotes". If the new believers were to know something about their religion, "What" it was was of interest. The fact they could use a slight of hand borrowed from platonic thought (common and known about by the new believers) about the issue of the creator having no "name" is not surprising. This in conjunction with the mixed teachings and exaltation of Messiah's name (to the point many try to prove it was YHWH's name in the Tanakh!) lead to the inevitable, "Who, what, when, etc..." questions that went quickly by the "Who" part (i.e. Who = what is his name?). This lead to signifigant amount of debate on "What is the creator" and "Who is the father, who is the son, and who is the spirit this NT teaches?".

So, after quickly covering some of the issues at hand, your statement about "Trinitarian versus Unitarian" is just not true. The events 200 to 300 years removed from an event have little to nothing to do with the event. If such drastic changes did occur early on in Christianity -- as the evidence clearly portrays -- then to conclude in a roundabout way the dealings of people some 200 years removed from the event as "proof" that something was an issue is just plain absurd and biased.

This is what your statement about the "true" issue at hand does. When you say, "but names weren't the dividing factor, trinitarianism versus unitarianism was" much detail and information is lacking. It is true that it was not an area of division between the majority of hellenistic church fathers. But saying this is akin to someone saying that the Shabbath was not a diving factor in the early assemblies. The literature left to us in the ANF is of a certain "brand". The fact that certain issues do not divide them is a mute point.

To put it plainly into your own world of thought, it is the same as a Shia sect debate in their literature that is of no interest to the Sunni sect because it is a non-issue. For example, the Shia sect in Islam has strong messianic tendancies. A debate within their sect about what to expect may be CENTRAL to their faith, yet to the Sunni Muslims it is of no importance because they feel the Qur`an adequately deals with the issue. the fact the two groups have a large rift, along with the disinterest of the Sunni in the Shia debate would not mean that the did not have strong feelings on the issue. Quite the contrary, the simple fact is that between the rift in the sects and the open-ended verses close-ended interest in the issue it is like two boats passing on opposite sides of the world. The most you would expect within a limited amount of literature would be novel quips. That is what we have here. I am just surprised you do not recognize the situation, though I can see where your background forbears your acknowledgement of this issue. That is not a "dig" at you, so please do not view it as such.

Plainly, the reason (as you say) the two divergent faiths in Messiah were debating the trinity was because that was all that was allowed to survive. We know that the Jewish-Believers (and those whith Judaic practices) were excommunicated. They were outcasts of the Jews, and hated by the hellenized Christians, and Rome had no liking to their problem making either. But, to look to 2dn, 3rd, or 4th century Christianity for the "keys" is to look in the wrong place. The place to REALLY establish what Messiah taught is in his words and the words of the Torah. to conclude issues by the views of later generations is faulty. It is more of an issue of both being wrong then any being right.

All that said I have endeavored on a project to catalogue all the variants within the NT tradition when it comes to the issue of the name. Thus far I have finished Matthew and have started with Acts. After doing the sruvey of Acts I am more sure then ever the name was removed from the text, as it bears CLEAR indications of where the scribes were confused whether to use theos or kurios for the name. Thus, for example, the phrase "word of YHWH" ends up in the Greek Acts as habitually having a theos/kurios variant. This is NOT a singular occurance, but a trend in Acts, as the variant is very common in this situation. But that is just one of MANY example is have found thus far. I hope to provide all the results for free on my webpage soon (hopefully with extensive information on the removal of the name from the NT and indepth textual discussions). Anyhow, George Howard was correct in theorizing that the new and "odd" nomina sacra in the NT coupled with the massive variants lends hefty evidence to the fact the name YHWH was stripped. There are few - if any - other explainations. As I said earlier - the grounds were ripe for such a move. It is more of a matter of establishing the big picture with all the evidence.

Šâlôwm b'YHWH - Joshua Luna.

Ps- Did I forget the fact that the NT texts themeselves bear a descent witness to the fact the name was used? I am sure others have some time to post extensively on this. John 17:6,26; Acts 2:21; Rom 10:9-13; Phil 2:9-11; etc... show some very clear signs of the importance of the name (Paul and James also make comments about your testimony for the name's sake, quoting the OT). As C.H. Roberts (one of the leading textual critics in the world and an authority on the NT) says in one of his books that the NT and the early Jerusalem assembly unquestionably had a very high name theology. I will have to tend to agree with his statement.

posted 07-23-1999 08:06 AM            

Joshua Luna,

Thanks for the in-depth reply, and I hope I am able to respond to it all (although it may take me some time), but for the time being here is the name of the thread:

Division in the early Messiah movement

Now that I read back over it, I think I was very tired when I wrote it, so please forgive my very poor sentence structure.

I didn't quite manage to express what I wnated to say, and what the book said that I based my thread on.

Peace,

[i]shlameal[ite].