Polycarp on this Day in History

This Day in History: February 23 is recognized as a feast day in honor of Polycarp of Smyrna. 

Polycarp was a Christian bishop/overseer of Smyrna. According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he died a martyr, bound and burned at the stake, then stabbed when the fire failed to consume his body. Polycarp is regarded as a saint and Church Father in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches.

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian say that Polycarp had been a disciple of John the Apostle, one of Jesus' disciples. In On Illustrious Men, Jerome writes that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle and that John had ordained him as a bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers, along with Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.

The webpage at https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes has a few quotes where they are trying to show that the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity Doctrine. They start off with Polycarp:

"O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

I noticed the same quotes with the same ellipsis (...) in Russell Sharrock's book, The Triunity of God (page 111); and in Matthew A. Paulson's book Breaking the Mormon Code, under the heading "Early Christian Quotations Suggesting the Trinity" and attributing the quote to Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians.

So what is missing in the ellipsis (...)? The words that are missing are "the Father of your beloved Son, Jesus Christ." So, the "Lord God almighty" is, according this quotation, the Father. The title "Lord God almighty" was not attributed to the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Also, this quote is not from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, but rather the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and this piece of work has been recognized as a literary forgery. See https://tinyurl.com/Polycarp-Forgery

Alvan Lamson, when examining the Epistle Of Polycarp came to the conclusion "that this old martyr had no conception of Jesus Christ as equal with God, or as one with him except in will and purpose. Here are no metaphysics, no confusion or obscurity, no hair-splitting distinctions. The Father is separated from the Son by a broad and distinct line, one as supreme, the other as subordinate; one as giving, the other as receiving; the Father granting to the Son a "throne at his right hand."

https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/07/christology-and-epistle-of-polycarp.html

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Emperor Constantius II on This Day in History

This Day in History: The anti-paganism policy of Constantius II forbade the worship of pagan idols in the Roman Empire on this day in 356. He also sought to advance Arianism/Semi-Arianism (the rejection of the Trinity doctrine) within Christianity. These policies may be contrasted with the religious policies of his father, Constantine the Great, whose Catholic orthodoxy was espoused in the Nicene Creed and who largely tolerated paganism in the Roman Empire.

Laws at this time prescribed the death penalty for those who performed or attended pagan sacrifices, and for the worshipping of idols. Pagan temples were shut down, and the Altar of Victory was removed from the Senate meeting house. There were also frequent episodes of ordinary Christians destroying, pillaging and desecrating many ancient pagan temples, tombs and monuments. Paganism was still popular among the population at the time. The emperor's policies were passively resisted by many governors and magistrates.

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Jefferson, Priestley, and the Trinity

 

This Day in History: English chemist, natural philosopher and Unitarian Joseph Priestley died on this day in 1804. In 1782 Priestley would publish An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, a work that upset many Christians in his day. 

Not Thomas Jefferson however.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the profound effect that Corruptions had on him: "I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and Early Opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them... as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never been answered." Although a few readers such as Jefferson approved of the work, it was generally harshly reviewed because of its extreme theological positions, particularly its rejection of the Trinity.

One section on the Trinity is produced below:

"Divines are content to build so strange and inexplicable a doctrine as that of the Trinity upon mere inferences from casual expressions, and cannot pretend to one clear, express, and unequivocal lesson on the subject

I wish you would reflect a little on the subject, and then inform us what there is in the doctrine of the Trinity, in itself considered, that can recommend it as a part of a system of religious truth. For there is neither any fact in nature, nor any one purpose of morals, which are the object and end of all religion, that requires it

If the doctrine of the Trinity be true, it is, no doubt, in the highest degree important and interesting. Since, therefore, the evangelists give no certain and distinct account of it, and say nothing of its importance, it may be safely inferred that it was unknown to them

Why was not the doctrine of the Trinity taught as explicitly, and in as definite a manner, in the New Testament at least, as the doctrine of the divine Unity is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, if it be a truth? And why is the doctrine of the Unity always delivered in so unguarded a manner, and without any exception made in favour of the Trinity, to prevent any mistake with respect to it, as is always now done in our orthodox catechisms, creeds, and discourses on the subject?

The doctrine of Transubstantiation implies a physical impossibility, whereas that of the Trinity, as unfolded in the Athanasian Creed, implies a mathematical one; and to this only we usually give the name of contradiction ......

Now I ask, Wherein does the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity differ from a contradiction? It asserts, in effect, that nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute each of them truly and properly God; each being equal in eternity and all divine perfections; and yet that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are, therefore, both one and many in the same respect, viz., in each being perfect God. This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter, James, and John, having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet, all together, not three men, but only one man. For the ideas annexed to the words God or man cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propositions .....

Why, then, should you be so desirous of retaining such a doctrine as this of the Trinity, which you must acknowledge has an uncouth appearance, has always confounded the best reason of mankind, and drives us to the undesirable doctrine of inexplicable mysteries? Try, then, whether you cannot hit upon some method or other of reconciling a few particular texts, not only with common sense, but also with the general and the obvious tenor of the Scriptures themselves. In the meantime, this doctrine of the Trinity wears so disagreeable an aspect, that I think every reasonable man must say, with the excellent Archbishop Tillotson, with respect to the Athanasian Creed, "I wish we were well rid of it." This is not setting up reason against the Scriptures, but reconciling reason with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures with themselves .....

I therefore think it of the greatest consequence to Christianity, that this doctrine of the Trinity, which I consider as one of its most radical corruptions, should be renounced in the most open and unequivocal manner by all those whose minds are so far enlightened as to be convinced that it is a corruption and an innovation in the Christian doctrine, the reverse of what it was in its primitive purity; and that they should exert themselves to enlighten the minds of others."

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents