Request for help with Church history

[Johnny MacManky]

Hi,

Perhaps someone with more experience than I have of Church history could help me here. I'm looking to research and present succinct and reliable evidence that, prior to 325AD (Council of Nicaea) Christians considered Jesus to be God (I'm using lay, rather than theological terms, 'cause I'm using this for evangelical, rather than apologetic or theologetical - did I just make up a word? :blush: - purposes)

Are quotes by the likes of Pliny the Younger, e.g. concerning Christians singing a hymn to "Christus as a god", authentic and free from interpolation? How old and reliable are the extant manuscripts of such quotes? Is Pliny merely cited in a latter work by church historians, or is he 'preserved intact' by recognised secular historians?

I need the same help with the Ante Nicaean Fathers. I found what seems to be a useful quote by St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia, which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by the fullness of GOD THE FATHER, predestined FROM ETERNITY for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, UNITED and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD...." (Letter to Ephesians addr; 7:2; 9:1; 18:2; Jurgens, vol 1, p. 17-18).

Another possible useful quote comes from St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 216 A.D.) "The Word, then, the Christ, is the CAUSE both of our ancient beginning -- for He was IN GOD -- and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. HE ALONE IS BOTH GOD AND MAN, . . . for the Word that was WITH God [John 1:1], the Word BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, has appeared as our Teacher; and He, who bestowerd life upon us in the beginning, when, AS OUR CREATOR, He formed us, now that He has appeared as our Teacher, has taught us to live well so that, afterwards, AS GOD, He might furnish us abundantly with eternal life." (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1; 10:110:1,3; Jurgens, p. 176-177)

I do not mean to appear to disrespect secondary sources preserving these works. I simply wish to be able to present as close to the primary source as possible.

This 'quest' is in relation to the Da Vinci Code, which I know contains neither 'real theology' or 'real history'. My position is that, as lots of potential Christians are reading this book and watching the movie, it's an opportunity to introduce people to the Jesus who changed my life.

I recently watched a video clip of Dr Erwin Lutzer's (of Moody Bible Church, Chicago) message to church leaders. It pretty well mirrors my own position.

You can check out the clip at:
http://www.davincideception.com/main.htm

To use the terminology Dr Lutzer uses, I'm motivated and stimulated by the challenge, but as far as Church History goes I don't have the education. I'm aware of the basics, but need some help with the details to ensure I am adequately prepared to defend the faith.

New Testament stuff is no problem, neither is providing pre 300AD texts a problem, I've got enough of a working grasp of the pre 300AD Greek Mss. to get by.

Thanks in anticipation, and who knows, maybe as you and I sit on our clouds, twanging our harps, someone will come up and tell us it was this thread that started the ball rolling in leading them to Christ.

Cheers

John

[Minnesota]

This 'quest' is in relation to the Da Vinci Code, which I know contains neither 'real theology' or 'real history'.

Don't be so sure about the history, at least some of it, not being real. Keep in mind that history is written by the winners. Just consider the "Keepers" and "Rejects" piles of writings at the Council of Nicaea.

[Johnny MacManky]

Don't be so sure about the history, at least some of it, not being real. Keep in mind that history is written by the winners. Just consider the "Keepers" and "Rejects" piles of writings at the Council of Nicaea.

Hey Minnesota,

Absolutely. I am being completely objective about it, in fact that's why I'm being so picky about the quality of the church historical sources.

Earlier I was reading somewhere concerning Origen, and found that (according to that site) some of Origen's works had been altered in copying and translation to 'smooth out' his unorthodox tendencies.

Perhaps as an example of my approach to history... I am a Christian by faith. I have faith that somehow God has spoken thru' the Bible, yet my intellect still cannot accept the contents of the Bible as all being 'historically true'. I'd be happy to discuss further what I mean by that, but I don't want to obscure my specific original question too much.

Cheers

John

[Minnesota]

yet my intellect still cannot accept the contents of the Bible as all being 'historically true'.
Not to prolong this brief detour, but good for you.

[sc_q_jayce]

Hey Minnesota,

Absolutely. I am being completely objective about it, in fact that's why I'm being so picky about the quality of the church historical sources.

Earlier I was reading somewhere concerning Origen, and found that (according to that site) some of Origen's works had been altered in copying and translation to 'smooth out' his unorthodox tendencies.

Perhaps as an example of my approach to history... I am a Christian by faith. I have faith that somehow God has spoken thru' the Bible, yet my intellect still cannot accept the contents of the Bible as all being 'historically true'. I'd be happy to discuss further what I mean by that, but I don't want to obscure my specific original question too much.

Cheers

John
Are you really being completely objective about it?

What do you mean by being completely objective about it?

[Johnny MacManky]

Are you really being completely objective about it?

What do you mean by being completely objective about it?

Hi SC,

I've got this little hang up about 'the truth'. By that I don't mean my view of the truth, or your view of the truth, but [f]actual truth. I realise that for some Christians my views may be deemed as heretical... :egad: in fact, by my understanding of the word - I am a heretic.

Johnny's definition of 'a heretic' is: one who thinks for themselves, a free thinker, as opposed to one who blindly accepts what another [traditionally the Bishop] tells them.

If I was to discover evidence that convinced me that the truth lay to 'the left', then I would turn left, etc. I'm not going to stick blindly to this or that dogma.

I hope this clarifies my objectivity. If not, I'll try & explain myself some more.

Cheers

John

[sc_q_jayce]

Hi SC,

I've got this little hang up about 'the truth'. By that I don't mean my view of the truth, or your view of the truth, but [f]actual truth. I realise that for some Christians my views may be deemed as heretical... :egad: in fact, by my understanding of the word - I am a heretic.

Johnny's definition of 'a heretic' is: one who thinks for themselves, a free thinker, as opposed to one who blindly accepts what another [traditionally the Bishop] tells them.

If I was to discover evidence that convinced me that the truth lay to 'the left', then I would turn left, etc. I'm not going to stick blindly to this or that dogma.

I hope this clarifies my objectivity. If not, I'll try & explain myself some more.

Cheers

John
Well, I'd respond to this in kind, but I'd need to pull up something from NT Wright that I think captures what I'm thinking. But since I'm almost in bed right now without the book in hand, it'll have to wait.

But. . .


By that I don't mean my view of the truth, or your view of the truth, but [f]actual truth.

Since factual/actual/flatulence/actuarial/fraternity/actuality truth is still selective, I don't think you will succeed in being objective. Though I think you will get somewhere that is reliable and feasible, reasonable and seasonal, I think it's just good to move past the idea that one can determine objective history, since history is selective and that selectivity colors all we work with.

I don't deny the existence of objectivity, but I am just wanting clarification on what your limits are.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .

Since factual/actual/flatulence/actuarial/fraternity/actuality truth is still selective, I don't think you will succeed in being objective. Though I think you will get somewhere that is reliable and feasible, reasonable and seasonal, I think it's just good to move past the idea that one can determine objective history, since history is selective and that selectivity colors all we work with.

I don't deny the existence of objectivity, but I am just wanting clarification on what your limits are.

Hey SC,

Phew, and I thought I was philosophical. :dizzy:

Essentially what I'll do is examine the evidence 'as we have it'. I'll examine the credibility of the evidence, e.g. could it have been interpolated? Was it written by someone with a vested interest in the topic? Is the evidence more credible if it exists in the form of incidental information, etc.

Then I'll weigh it all up, and ask the age old questions: Is it possible? Is it probable? Then I'll make a judgement call and do my bestest not to let my preconceptions colour my decision. Whether that counts as being objective, or simply as "reliable and feasible", I dunno. :shrug:

I suppose I used the word 'objective' more in relation to trying to overcome the danger of my own preconceptions deciding the issue for me.

Cheers

John

[rHarryr]

Hey John;

You remember this old guy, you might have studied about him if you had any courses in psycology. By name Sigmund Freud. He is pretty well known for his abnormal psycology. He is lesser known for his NORMAL psycology. In it, he pretty well explains how the human mind is influenced from babyhood to manhood. In essence he says, no man has the capability to be completely objective. The best he can hope for is to try to absorb ALL information possibily available before he finally makes a SUBJECTIVE decision based on what he has learned. His best hope is that in his studies, if he encounters something that contradicts his preconceived notions, and it happens to be the truth, that he can immediately accept the new information as the truth, and change his frame of referrence to include this new (truth) and rethink his position that when he does make his decision it MAY lean a little more to the objective. Don't accept anything at face value, yet don't refuse to consider anything.

P.S. Did you also know that he was a closet Christian. According to his daughter, if you really wanted to know the man, read his letters, not his lectures.


rHarryr

P.P.S. C.S. Lewis was a confirmed athiest until something happened and he became one of Christianitys' greatest writers of the 20th century.

[rHarryr]

If you look up the Diatessaron, a second century harmony of the gospels, it might be a good start. If you haven't already, key into a search engine, Early Christian manuscripts, Christian manuscripts by century, then use your imagination and go from there.

[rHarryr]

By the way. Which Pliny was that. If I remember correctly, there were two. Again, if I remember correctly one was called the Elder and the other was called the Younger.

rHarryr

[mostlyharmless]

Hi,

Perhaps someone with more experience than I have of Church history could help me here. I'm looking to research and present succinct and reliable evidence that, prior to 325AD (Council of Nicaea) Christians considered Jesus to be God (I'm using lay, rather than theological terms, 'cause I'm using this for evangelical, rather than apologetic or theologetical - did I just make up a word? :blush: - purposes)


I do not have any short quote or such that would make the case for you but you really should read the book Lord Jesus Christ by Hurtado which goes through all the evidence available to us about what early Christians thought of Christ. Primarily it looks at their devotion to Christ and what that says about their view of him as divine. There are very good reasons that you do not see many quotes saying he is divine but there are no short explanations for this.

[rHarryr]

Please read my posts in the thread "St. Paul in England". You might find that they lead to evidence of 1st century Church History not commonly known.

[rHarryr]

Please see my latest post in Research thread, this category.

rHarryr

[Johnny MacManky]

I do not have any short quote or such that would make the case for you but you really should read the book Lord Jesus Christ by Hurtado which goes through all the evidence available to us about what early Christians thought of Christ. Primarily it looks at their devotion to Christ and what that says about their view of him as divine. There are very good reasons that you do not see many quotes saying he is divine but there are no short explanations for this.

Thanks MH.

I've since found several online reviews and replies to the book which are also helpful.

e.g. http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1958 and http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5145_5414.pdf

I'll get a copy of the book next time I'm in town.

[robto]

Hi, Manky,

You should also look at Justin (mid-2nd century). In his Dialogue with Trypho, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html) he writes of Jesus:

there is… another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things

[Adam]

Hi, Manky,

You should also look at Justin (mid-2nd century). In his Dialogue with Trypho, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html) he writes of Jesus:

there is… another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things

So Justin was an Arian?
Where do you go in the earliest Fathers to find a trinitarian?
Adam

[mostlyharmless]

So Justin was an Arian?
Where do you go in the earliest Fathers to find a trinitarian?
Adam

No, Justin was not an Arian. The language available to describe the trinity did not exist at the time, at least not as we use it. Justin and other early church fathers like the people who wrote the new testament writings conceived the trinity in economic terms without worrying about how it is possible. Thus they usually talk about God in terms of the Father, the source of all with the Son, his divine Word and creative principle, and the Spirit, his breath or divine principle within creation. They also affirm that it is appropriate to worship all three as God, even while they still declare that they follow a strict monotheism. As the church progressed the need for clearer language and definitions became evident and thus we ended up with the trinitarian creeds.

"there is… another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things"
This is an interesting quote that taken out of context makes Justin look like a polytheist or Arian, but if you actually read both both his apology and dialogue it is very clear that he sees Christ as God's Word. He says "God has begotten of himself a certain rational Power as the beginning before all other creatures. The Holy Spirit indicates this Power by various titles: sometimes the Glory of the Lord, at other times Son, or Wisdom, or Angel, or God, or Lord, or Word." Notice that here we have the trinity in operation, and that he applies the titles reserved for the Father to Christ.

The metaphor he uses for the generation of the Word is the sun sending forth its rays or a fire kindling "another" fire. The classic phrase "Light from Light" in the Nicene creed comes from his writings. What we can say is that Justin like most other early church fathers was somewhat subordinationist, because he had a sense of the ineffable transcendence of the Father and Creator of all things. This idea of the utter transcendence of the Creator is in line with Greek thinking of his time, but it is also common to Jewish thinking.

Justin is one of the first early church fathers we have and is also a trinitarian. I'll leave you with a quote to make it clearer that he was a trinitarian given that he defended himself as a monotheist (see dialogue).

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Notice that for Justin there are no God's of the sort that the Romans revere, yet there is a God consisting of the Father, Son, and Spirit that Christians worship and adore. Unfortunately for us his use of the title angel for Christ is confusing but it is clear that he considers worship of the Son to be appropriate while it is not for the angels.

[robto]

No, Justin was not an Arian. The language available to describe the trinity did not exist at the time, at least not as we use it.
[snip]
Justin is one of the first early church fathers we have and is also a trinitarian.

You should have stopped after the first two sentences above.

Your'e right, the language used by modern Christians was not yet developed at the time of Justin. Therefore, if it makes no sense to call him an Arian (and I agree with you there), neither does it make any sense to call him a trinitarian. Yes, he believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but so did the Arians. The quote you provided no more proves he was trinitarian than my quote proves Arianism.

Here's some more of what Justin says about Jesus (from this page (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html)):

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said....

And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

So Jesus is
- God, but also Man, and Angel
- numerically distinct from the Father
- but not by separation (abscission) from the Father

What we DON'T find in Justin is any of the orthodox claims about the Trinity: one God in three equal and eternal Persons. Justin emphasizes that Jesus is subject to the Father - a somewhat subordinationist view, like Origen a century later.

The fact is, the orthodox trinitarian viewpoint is rarely found in Christian writing until the fourth century. Tertullian may have been the first to express the idea of one God in three Persons, around 200 AD. Ironically, in later life he joined the Montanist sect, a heretical group according to the mainstream church.

[robto]

But both Him, and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Notice that for Justin there are no God's of the sort that the Romans revere, yet there is a God consisting of the Father, Son, and Spirit that Christians worship and adore. Unfortunately for us his use of the title angel for Christ is confusing but it is clear that he considers worship of the Son to be appropriate while it is not for the angels.

I have eliminated the parentheses which, of course, are not in the original. What Justin is actually saying is that the host of angels are worshipped, too. Note, too, that the Spirit is mentioned AFTER the host of angels. This is not evidence of trinitarianism.

[mostlyharmless]

I have eliminated the parentheses which, of course, are not in the original. What Justin is actually saying is that the host of angels are worshipped, too. Note, too, that the Spirit is mentioned AFTER the host of angels. This is not evidence of trinitarianism.

Actually its ambiguous. I thought it better to quote it than pretend that Justin isn't sometimes confusing. You declare that his actual meaning is that the angels should be worshiped, but if the portion about angels is a comment about "who taught us these things" then it does not follow that they are included in this declaration of worship.

There is some support for Justin linking the three together. For instance in the cultic Eucharist worship he describes it as

There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost

or in the baptism ritual

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water

Since these are the worship practices described by Justin it is very unlikely that he was meaning that the angels are worshiped with the Father, Son, and Spirit.

[mostlyharmless]

You should have stopped after the first two sentences above.

Your'e right, the language used by modern Christians was not yet developed at the time of Justin. Therefore, if it makes no sense to call him an Arian (and I agree with you there), neither does it make any sense to call him a trinitarian. Yes, he believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but so did the Arians. The quote you provided no more proves he was trinitarian than my quote proves Arianism.


It was my mistake to say trinitarian when I ment only that his writings support trinitarian beliefs. It is somewhat difficult to press his analogies to support Arian beliefs because as you mention below it is clear from his writings that Jesus is God, but not by separation. To be Arian does imply seperation since Jesus is a created being under this system.



So Jesus is
- God, but also Man, and Angel
- numerically distinct from the Father
- but not by separation (abscission) from the Father

What we DON'T find in Justin is any of the orthodox claims about the Trinity: one God in three equal and eternal Persons. Justin emphasizes that Jesus is subject to the Father - a somewhat subordinationist view, like Origen a century later.

I agree entirely with what you have summerised here. But these are key beliefs that the orthodox trinitarian view tries to capture in the creeds. We have to be careful to not import our ideas of personhood into the discussions about the trinity, because at the time the concept was not available. Justin uses different terminology, but conceptually the ideas are the same.

[robto]

Mostly;

Fair enough. The linking of the three in baptism goes back at least to Matt 28:19: Justin's use is consistent with that tradition.

While Justin's language is somewhat ambiguous about the worship of angels, the straightforward reading implies that the angels ARE worshiped. If Justin wanted to avoid that implication you'd think he would have been more careful in his wording. I don't think the use of Father/Son/Spirit in other contexts refutes that possibility. But I agree the situation isn't completely clear.

[one_lost_coin]

All you have to do is read through some early church liturgies here is a link to the anaphora of addai and mari http://www.kaldu.org/3_chaldean_culture/TheAnaphora_ApostlesAddai_Mari.html one of the earliest used and easily pre 300 ad. You cant do any better proving that the early church worshiped Jesus as God than to read the words they followed in the Divine Liturgy which was used by the church as it actually worshipping Jesus as God. I think this approach will help you immensely. If you find that site and this approach usefull and have trouble finding more let me know I know a number of others.

[robto]

All you have to do is read through some early church liturgies here is a link to the anaphora of addai and mari http://www.kaldu.org/3_chaldean_culture/TheAnaphora_ApostlesAddai_Mari.html one of the earliest used and easily pre 300 ad. You cant do any better proving that the early church worshiped Jesus as God than to read the words they followed in the Divine Liturgy which was used by the church as it actually worshipping Jesus as God. I think this approach will help you immensely. If you find that site and this approach usefull and have trouble finding more let me know I know a number of others.

That liturgy is very interesting in its own right (it doen'snt include the lines about Jesus commanding his followers to "do this (eucharist) in memory of me"), but I don't think anyone doubts that most Christians worshipped Jesus as God by 300 AD. The question is, how early did this theology (more properly, Christology) develop? From Ignatius and John, we can say that it certainly had developed by about 100 AD. But the earlier sources (Paul, Mark, Q) don't express this view.

[one_lost_coin]

That liturgy is very interesting in its own right (it doen'snt include the lines about Jesus commanding his followers to "do this (eucharist) in memory of me"), but I don't think anyone doubts that most Christians worshipped Jesus as God by 300 AD. The question is, how early did this theology (more properly, Christology) develop? From Ignatius and John, we can say that it certainly had developed by about 100 AD. But the earlier sources (Paul, Mark, Q) don't express this view.

I was responding to the original post which was only asking for evidence/documentation for pre 300 ad that Jesus was God you can't get anything more conclusive than people actually worshiping Jesus as God. No it didn't contain that line you quote but than the article was not a complete analysis of the anaphora.

It was only after posting I noticed the original post was in 2006 well guess it wont help him much now.

Now if the discussion is focused on the developement of Christology. I realize you are looking for a paper trail for evidence but if I may throw in a guess I would say it developed as early as the ministry of Jesus. As from Him asking the diciples "who do men say that I am" it was obviously already a hot topic.