# Interesting read



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 31, 2012)

This copied from another site with permission:

 History - The early Christians were not Trinitarians
How the Trinity doctrine infiltrated Christianity.... 

Christianity as a whole was already widespread throughout the Roman Empire when Constantine became Emperor in 306 AD. Yet, rather than violently opposing the constant spread of the Christian movement, as the previous Roman Emperors had done, Constantine decided to embrace it and assimilate it into Roman society instead. In 313 AD, Emperor Constantine (who recently “converted” to Christianity) suddenly began issuing state support for the Christian churches and clergymen. This was in stark contrast to the actions of the previous Roman Emperor, Diocletian, who persecuted Christians severely during his own reign. Those Christians who refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods under the reign of Diocletian were imprisoned, tortured, and killed; but now, under Constantine, Christian clergy were getting government benefits, exemption from taxes, and extremely high social status. Consequently, throngs of people now sought to attain positions among the ecclesiastical structure, so much so that Roman officials wrote to Constantine complaining that they could not find enough men to fill the governmental positions within their cities. In response, Constantine issued an order prohibiting men to enter into the priesthood who were eligible for civic duties. Everybody suddenly wanted to be a preacher! 

Prior to the establishment of the Roman papacy, the highest clerical position that one could have was that of a bishop. The second highest position was that of a presbyter (also called a priest). Presbyters presided over individual churches within the jurisdiction of their local bishop. There was only one bishop per city, and he was to oversee the Christian activities therein. The more massive the city, the more political power the bishop tended to have and the more widespread his doctrinal influences tended to become. 

The city of Alexandria (boasting a population upwards of one million) was the second most important city within the entire Roman Empire. Only the capital city of Rome itself was considered to be greater. Consequently, the single bishop who presided over Alexandria wielded almost insurmountable influences within the Christendom and, under Constantine, within the politics of Rome itself.

In the beginning of the 4th century a man named Achillas served only one year as the bishop of Alexandria before appointing his predecessor. One of the candidates for the position was a presbyter named Arius (being at that time about 56 years old):

Arius was the parish priest, as he may be described, of the church of Baukalis, the oldest and most important of the churches of Alexandria ... He had been a possible successor at the...vacancy of the “Evangelical Throne.” (- A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, pg. 12)

Nevertheless, in 312 AD, Achillas assigned the position of bishop to an elderly man named Alexander instead, and Arius remained the presbyter over the most important church of the city. Shortly after Alexander became bishop, while he was standing by a window at his beach house waiting for some guests to arrive, he saw a group of boys playing on the shore, pretending to baptize one another in the sea.

He therefore sent for the children and had them brought into his presence. In the investigation that followed it was discovered that one of the boys, who was no other than the future Primate of Alexandria [Athanasius], had acted the part of the bishop, and in that character had actually baptized several of his companions in the course of their play. Alexander, who seems to have been unaccountably puzzled over the answers he received to his inquiries, determined to recognize the make-believe baptisms as genuine; and decided that Athanasius and his playfellows should go into training in order to fit themselves for a clerical career. (-The Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Athanasius)

Athanasius, the boy who was pretending to be a bishop on the beach, was born sometime around in 296 – 298 AD, so he was only 14 – 16 years of age at this time (312 AD). Not long thereafter, Alexander invited Athanasius to be his secretary and to share in his meals. Thus, Athanasius had a growing relationship and influence upon the Alexandrian bishop. While still a teenager (or, at the most, 20 years old), Athanasius composed two works: Against the Pagans and The Incarnation. It was in these works that Athanasius declared his heretical views that confounded the Son of God with the Father. 

The young Athanasius declared that the Son did not have a beginning, but instead always coexisted with the Father as a second person who was the same God as the Father. However, unlike Athanasius, Arius was teaching that the Son did not exist from eternity past, but instead began to exist when God begot him. Realizing that the two men were teaching contradicting doctrines, Alexander summoned Arius to himself in order to discuss the subject of Christ’s origin. Arius declared his beliefs to Alexander and afterwards went back to his duties as a local presbyter. Yet, apparently the issue was still up for debate in Alexander’s mind, because he decided to hold a council of the Alexandrian clergy in order to discuss the matter further. 

In order to prepare for the meeting, Alexander sent for a statement of faith from those regional clergymen who believed as Arius did. Accordingly, a letter was sent from them declaring that the Father existed before the Son. 

The letter contained the following words:

To our blessed pope and bishop, Alexander. The presbyters and deacons in union with the Lord bid you greetings. Our belief, which comes from our forefathers and which we have learned from you as well, blessed pope, is as follows: ... God, who is the cause of all, is the only one without beginning. The Son, on the other hand, who was begotten of the Father (though not in time) and who was created and established before the ages, did not exist prior to his begetting ... And therefore [God] is also before Christ, as we have learned from you when you have preached in the congregation. (-Letter from the “Arians” to Alexander of Alexandria,Epiphanius LXIX, 7:2-8:5 & Athanasius, De Synodis, 16. LNPF ser.2, Vol. 4, pg. 458)

Two Egyptian bishops (Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais), Arius, five other presbyters, and six deacons signed this document as witnesses to the fact that Alexander previously taught the beliefs which they now held to. Yet, apparently desirous of reconsidering the accurateness of his own previous beliefs, Alexander proceeded to call the aforementioned meeting of the Alexandrian clergy. Arius was present. This meeting is where the conflict between Arius and Alexander explodes.

Sozomen, a 5th century Trinitarian historian whose works covered Christian events from 323 – 439 AD, describes how Alexander was not even certain of what he himself believed during the controversial meeting of Alexandrian clergy:

According to Sozomen, Alexander seemed to waver between the Arian and anti-Arian positions. Ultimately he asserted in strong terms the coequality of the Son; whereupon Arius criticized his language as savouring of the Sabellian error which had “confounded the persons.” (-A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, pg. 12)

Sozomen’s description of the meeting in Alexandria reads as follows:

During the debate, Alexander seemed to incline first to one party and then to the other; finally, however, he declared himself in favor of those who affirmed that the Son was consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, and he commanded Arius to receive this doctrine, and to reject his former opinions. Arius, however, would not be persuaded to compliance, and many of the bishops and clergy considered his statement of doctrine to be correct. Alexander, therefore, ejected him and the clergy who concurred with him in sentiment from the church. Those of the parish of Alexandria, who had embraced his opinions, were the presbyters Aithalas, Achillas, Carpones, Sarmates, and [another] Arius, and the deacons Euzoius, Macarius, Julius, Menas, and Helladius. Many of the people, likewise, sided with them: some, because they imagined their doctrines to be of God; others, as frequently happens in similar cases, because they believed them to have been ill-treated and unjustly excommunicated. (-Sozomen, book 1, chapter 15)

Amazing! Sozomen records the apostasy of the Alexandrian bishop! And now, having become fully acceptant of Athanasius’ theology, the metropolitan bishop of Alexandria too began proclaiming openly that Christ coexisted with the Father throughout eternity past as one God. And, because Arius would not conform, Alexander flexed his political muscle and began persecuting the presbyter and those other clergy who sided with him.

Arius wrote a letter to the bishop of Nicomedia, describing his plight as follows: 

We are vehemently opposed and persecuted, and every engine is set in motion against us by the bishop ... Eusebius, your brother, bishop of Caesarea, and Theodotus and Paulinus, Athanasius [bishop of Anagastus], Gregorius and Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, affirm, that God, who is without a beginning, existed before the Son. ... We are persecuted, because we have said that the Son has a beginning. But God is without a beginning. On this account we are persecuted, and because we said that he is of things not existing. Thus we have said, because he is not a part of God, nor of any subject matter. On this account we are persecuted. (-Letter of Arius to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, pg. 414)

After hearing of Alexander’s apostasy, the bishop of Nicomedia then sent a subsequent letter to the bishop of Tyre, saying:

We have never heard, my Lord, of two beings unbegotten, nor of one divided into two; nor have we learnt or believed that he could suffer anything corporeal, but that there is one unbegotten, and another truly from him. (-Letter of Eusebius, Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, pg. 415)

Nevertheless, although it was previously unheard of, this new doctrine of Athanasius was now being promoted by the super-bishop of Alexandria himself and was causing major dissension in Constantine’s Roman Empire. 

In 325 AD, Constantine assembled a council of 250 bishops at Nicea to settle this divisive dispute. However, the council’s proceedings were far from fair. Constantine presided over the council himself, and, being the Emperor of Rome and therefore an advocate of subordination, he unsurprisingly wanted the authoritative decision to go to the ranking metropolitan bishop rather than the subservient priest. Eusebius of Caesarea, one of the bishops in attendance at the council, describes Constantine’s interference in the following excerpt:

[After reading a written statement] of our faith [aloud], there was no pretense for contradiction. But our pious emperor himself was the first to declare, that it was extremely well conceived, and that it expressed his own sentiments, exhorting all to assent to, and sign it, that they might unite in its doctrines, with the addition only of the single word consubstantial (homoousios). (-Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, pg. 417)

Constantine wanted unity among his empire, and he was himself trying to assure that unity by siding with the Alexandrian bishop’s views. At this point in time, those who opposed the Alexander in favor of Arius would have been opposing Constantine himself (who announced during the meeting that anyone refusing to sign the creed would be exiled). 

Arius was about 70 years old during his “trial” at Nicea. During the council’s procession Nicolaus, the bishop of Myra, struck a blow to the seventy-year old presbyter’s head. This gives us an adequate picture of the dominating attitude towards Arius during the council’s procession. Arius was not even allowed the dignity of presenting his defense––his written presentation was torn to pieces, and Constantine immediately exiled him for refusing to sign the creed. 

Of the 250 bishops present at Nicea, only two bishops initially stood up to the Emperor’s threats. They were exiled along with Arius for not signing the Nicene Creed. Three of the bishops who did sign the creed afterwards recanted for having done so, as they subsequently stated in a letter addressed to Constantine himself, saying: 

“We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.” (- Excerpt from Eusebius of Nicomedia’s letter to Constantine, as it reads in Jesus the Evidence, Ian Wilson, Harper and Row, 1984, p. 168)

Although many of the bishops that signed the Nicene Creed first required an interpretation that would rule out the literal meaning of Constantine’s addition (homoousios), they, notwithstanding, did sign the creed. And thus you have the first imperial judgment given in favor of the Trinitarian doctrine. This final acceptance of the homoousios terminology is quite astonishing, because the Christian Synods of Antioch (264 – 272 AD) previously condemned this exact same term over fifty years prior to its acceptance at the Council of Nicea (325 AD).

The Catholic Encyclopedia records the rejection of homoousios by the Synods of Antioch, saying:

Origen ... expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son “Heteroousion.” The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264–272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, “of other or different ousia (substance).” (-Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Homoousion)

The Dictionary of Early Christian Biography even concedes that these Synods of Antioch voted in favor of Arius’ beliefs, saying:

The question of the exact relation between the Father and the Son had been raised some 50 years before the Nicene controversy arose... So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favour of the opinions afterwards held by Arius. (-A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography, pg. 41)

Unlike the more ancient Synods of Antioch who favored Arius’ views and rejected homoousios, the 4th century Council of Nicea (at the exhortation of the Roman Emperor) passed a resolution against those tenets by subscribing to the non-biblical Nicene Creed, which states that God and Christ are consubstantial. 

Subsequent to the confirmation of the same-substance terminology at Nicea, Constantine issued letters to the Christian communities within his empire, urging them all to be unified under the doctrine approved at Nicea. Yet, there was such an objection to the new doctrine that he eventually reversed his position. Constantine thought that he would be successful in uniting Christendom under Alexander and Athanasius’ homoousios doctrine . . . he was wrong. Two years after the Council of Nicea, Arius was recalled from exile after finally being given a fair trial at the Council of Nicomedia.

In 341 AD, another Council was held at Antioch, where ninety-seven bishops announced that Arius was orthodox.

Another council was held at Rimini in 359 AD, where over four hundred bishops––That’s more bishops than were at Nicea!––signed a creed renouncing the homoousios doctrine altogether. 

In any case, the council [of Rimini] was a sudden defeat of [Trinitarian] orthodoxy, and St. Jerome could say: “The whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian.” (-The Catholic Encyclopedia, entry for Council of Rimini)

In 380 AD, Emperor Theodsius began a public persecution of "Arians," promoting the Trinity doctrine by force.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 31, 2012)

So the Emperor Constantine presided over the council to make sure they believed the same way he did. This was done all in the name of "Unity". The "Trinity" is now such a big part of Christianity that if you don't believe in it, you're not even a Christian in some peoples eyes.
I guess the challenge would be to get Christians to consider this view without it being considered heresy.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2012)

I like both of you guys but shouldn't you be discussing this issue with your brethren a couple of floors up?  All of us heretics recognize that there has been monkey business involved in the development of the Christian doctrine and it's text.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I like both of you guys but shouldn't you be discussing this issue with your brethren a couple of floors up?



You beat me to it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I like both of you guys but shouldn't you be discussing this issue with your brethren a couple of floors up?  All of us heretics recognize that there has been monkey business involved in the development of the Christian doctrine and it's text.



eh, there's a third A in this forum, besides, they will be more likely to find a friendly audience down here.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 31, 2012)

To the OP, it's interesting but ... unsourced.

I did see the same info on the CARM forum, though.  A guy who goes by "Gettingtalents"posted it there and on at least one other site.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> eh, there's a third A in this forum, besides, they will be more likely to find a friendly audience down here.



As I understand it,  the other "A" is about making a logical explanation of how a donkey can talk.  Showing that men not only created the Bible and the idea of god but have been tweaking both from day one can only help those who still believe in their divinity.

To the OP: a friendly "Amen!"


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> As I understand it,  the other "A" is about making a logical explanation of how a donkey can talk.  Showing that men not only created the Bible and the idea of god but have been tweaking both from day one can only help those who still believe in their divinity.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> eh, there's a third A in this forum, besides, they will be more likely to find a friendly audience down here.



Your requirments for "friendly" must be pretty low.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 31, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Your requirments for "friendly" must be pretty low.



Depends on the topic


----------



## TheBishop (Jul 31, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Your requirments for "friendly" must be pretty low.



Jb has never shown that he feels morally or righteously superior, nor the intellectual ineptitude to warrant an unfriendly response.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


>



I meant that posting this info here is 'preaching to the choir'.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 31, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I meant that posting this info here is 'preaching to the choir'.



Got it. And, I would agree.  Probably why it is here and not there.  Going upstairs requires some thick skin if one is to challenge traditionally accepted norms.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 31, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> To the OP, it's interesting but ... unsourced.
> 
> I did see the same info on the CARM forum, though.  A guy who goes by "Gettingtalents"posted it there and on at least one other site.


Yes, I asked his permission to post it elsewhere. The mods at Carm deleted it. It was posted in the Trinity forum and they deleted it. Can you believe that


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> eh, there's a third A in this forum, besides, they will be more likely to find a friendly audience down here.


Many seem to hold the opinion that everything goes in the Christian forum if it is about Christianity. My mindset is that it belongs in the "Apologetics" section. I consider myself an apologetic. The fact that apologetics and athiest are together is why many feel this way.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 31, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Many seem to hold the opinion that everything goes in the Christian forum if it is about Christianity. My mindset is that it belongs in the "Apologetics" section. I consider myself an apologetic. The fact that apologetics and athiest are together is why many feel this way.



The reason I questioned it is that the skeptics don't believe in either the Unitarian or the Trinitarian God.  I don't think they care which One we waste our time worshipping.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 31, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> The reason I questioned it is that the skeptics don't believe in either the Unitarian or the Trinitarian God.  I don't think they care which One we waste our time worshipping.



We wouldn't care if you kept it in your own homes.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2012)

So how does an apologetic make sense of this?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> So how does an apologetic make sense of *this?*


Which part? The apparent evolving of the trinity or it getting deleted elsewhere? Or maybe another line of reasoning?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 31, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Which part? The apparent evolving of the trinity or it getting deleted elsewhere? Or maybe another line of reasoning?



The change in doctrine. Are we to assume the early church had it wrong? Or the modern church? Was this evolution in doctrine part of the plan all along?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 31, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> The change in doctrine. Are we to assume the early church had it wrong? Or the modern church? Was this evolution in doctrine part of the plan all along?


You know my thoughts on the matter, yet it is interesting how convinced the majority is on being right.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 31, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> You know my thoughts on the matter......



Am I correct in assuming you side with the early church, or your opinion of what they believed (not intended to sound negative....just clarifying before it was jumped on), on the matter?  Would that make you closer to "Orthodox?"


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 31, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> You know my thoughts on the matter, yet it is interesting how convinced the majority is on being right.



Sometimes, even the Christian majority needs to confront it's beliefs.  Too often we believe we're "right" just because we might be in the majority.
I personally think it would be worthy of discussion in the Christian forum.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2012)

Many "Church of God" Binitarians believe that their Christology perspective most accurately reflects that of the "original Christians", the Messianic Jews. 
Do we have any "Church of God" members on here that would like to elaborate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism

Binitarians do not believe that Jesus "was fully human and fully God", which is the position held by trinitarians. They believe that Jesus was God (the Word) prior to His incarnation, that He became fully human (finite) yet he was not fully God during the pre-resurrection incarnation as He did not have the powers etc. of God then, and that all authority was restored to Him (as well as his infinite God-status) at or shortly after the resurrection. (end quote)
We've discussed Jesus giving up his diety while on earth previously on this forum. It's all interesting and alot to absorb no matter what you believe.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2012)

Two side notes I would like to make.

1. Constatine is not the creator of the Christian church.He fused Christianity and Paganism to create the Catholic church.The first Christians were persecuted by the Jew and Pagan, later to be persecuted by the Catholic church.
http://m.ccel.org/ccel/foxe/martyrs/home.html

2. Messianic Jews were not the first Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2012)

More on the Binitarian view:
Ignatius, Polycarp, and Melito, all major church leaders in the second century, refer to the Father as God, Jesus as God, but never the Holy Spirit as God. It was only from a heretic that the idea of three hypostasis developed, and even that idea is admitted as to coming from paganism. 

http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm#con
All known early documents by real Christians and those accepted by others that way support the view that early Christians were binitarian and believed that Jesus was not co-equal to the Father.

Biblical scholars and historians can trace the binitarian belief that the Father and Son, but not the Holy Spirit, are separate persons throughout the history of those who profess Christ.

And it is the correct position from the Bible. Those who do not understand it correctly, simply do not understand the Bible correctly. 

Ending Comment: While I have read articles from the Jehovah's Witnesses (or other unitarians) correctly arguing that the trinity is false or from the various trinitarians explaining why the unitarian position that Jesus was not God is false, they almost always overlook the binitarian position that the Bible clearly teaches that the Father and Son are God, but does not clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is God. Of course, the truth is that the Bible and the facts of early church history do support the basic binitarian view (the belief that God the Father is supreme in authority to Jesus, God the Son , and that the Holy Spirit is not the third member of the Godhead. ). It is distressing to me that so many will discount the biblical teachings on this subject (as well as others), but sadly most do.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> 2. Messianic Jews were not the first Christians.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism



I guess a better name for the first Christians would be Hebrew Christians or Jewish Christians.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess a better name for the first Christians would be Hebrew Christians or Jewish Christians.


What's wrong with calling them Christians?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> What's wrong with calling them Christians?



I'll agree other than for historical reasons. The early Church had many different sects and divisions just like today. It would be hard to say they were all Trinitiarian or not with all the different beliefs of the time.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'll agree other than for historical reasons. The early Church had many different sects and divisions just like today. It would be hard to say they were all Trinitiarian or not with all the different beliefs of the time.



Back to the topic at hand.I think there's ample evidence in the Bible that the first Christians thought of Jesus as God, and many times He told them so.Its just a matter of studying what He said, and how they would percieve it.One time of the top of my head is when He said they would see the son of man coming in the clouds.......this is representative as to how God comes to earth....in the clouds.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Am I correct in assuming you side with the early church, or your opinion of what they believed (not intended to sound negative....just clarifying before it was jumped on), on the matter?  Would that make you closer to "Orthodox?"


I guess what the early church believed is up for debate. Orthodoxy was won by the majority, yet that in itself does not make one correct. I think the sermon that Peter gave the first converts in Acts carries much weight as to determing what they accepted and was baptized. Many trins I discuss with elsewhere have gone as far as to say that the early church did not know the correct doctrine, that it was only known by the later scriptures.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 1, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> More on the Binitarian view:
> Ignatius, Polycarp, and Melito, all major church leaders in the second century, refer to the Father as God, Jesus as God, but never the Holy Spirit as God. It was only from a heretic that the idea of three hypostasis developed, and even that idea is admitted as to coming from paganism.
> 
> http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm#con
> ...


Ignatius letters are forgeries. We could discuss this if you wish. Polycarp has only one place in his writings that seem to say that he calls Jesus God. But what is interesting is that not all of those translating his letter are in agreement. We had a recent thread about this. I could paste the evidence. I don't know who Melito is?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 1, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'll agree other than for historical reasons. The early Church had many different sects and divisions just like today. *It would be hard to say they were all Trinitiarian or not* with all the different beliefs of the time.


For sure, they were not trinitarian. Creeds were established to define "orthodox" or what is considered "right doctrine". Over time, these creeds were declared in order that they might set a foundation that Christianity is built upon. You can read the creeds, starting with the "Apostles creed", not to imply that the apostles themselves wrote it, but was named that assuming that they were declaring that which the apostles believed. From there, but not limited to, see the Nicene creed, and then, the creed that does have the trinity doctrine....... I can't think of the name of this one.... little help somebody.... creed of 451.......Somebody will show up and help me out. But anyway, you can see it evolve. We gloss right over the amount of time passed. I think of what all has changed in my life. One generation, add another, that is a lot of time passed by before the trinity came to be. Many think it was decided at the nicea council. But the trinitarian belief was not argued for until much later.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Ignatius letters are forgeries. We could discuss this if you wish. Polycarp has only one place in his writings that seem to say that he calls Jesus God. But what is interesting is that not all of those translating his letter are in agreement. We had a recent thread about this. I could paste the evidence. I don't know who Melito is?



Yes I remember that discussion.


----------

