The Deity of Christ: Ante-Nicene Beliefs

Author: Fisher

Jul 26

If you’ve read the Da Vinci Code or listened to Skeptics and Muslims giving objections to the Christian faith, one argument that you might hear is that doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the Holy Trinity were completely foreign to the New Testament Church and was an invention of Nicea. As an example of how this argument is frequently employed, a certain booklet published by the Islamic Circle of North America contains the following statement in one of its notes:

It was in the ancient city of Nicea (which was located in modern-day Turkey approximately 700 miles or 1100 km NNW of Jerusalem near the eastern Roman capitol) that the First Council of Nicea convened, 325 years after the birth of Jesus. It was at this council that Jesus was declared by the majority of the council members to be divine rather than God’s Prophet and Messenger. The concept of the trinity was established by declaring that Jesus was the same as and equal to God. This is in direct opposition to the Abrahamic principles of monotheism, which Jesus himself called people to and affirmed.[1]

In addition, one can find the following on one of the pamphlets that they often distribute:

With their teacher gone, the devoted followers of Jesus tried to maintain the purity and simplicity of his teachings. But they were soon besieged and overtaken by a flood of Roman and Greek influences, which eventually so buried and distorted the message of Jesus that only a little of its truth now remains. Strange doctrines of Jesus being a man-god, of God dying, of saint worship and of God being made up of different parts came into vogue and were accepted by many of those who took the name “Christians” centuries after Jesus. [2]

Of course, all of this is a misrepresentation of what Christians actually believe, not to mention of the history of the faith. The New Testament provides a wealth of evidence that the followers of Jesus believed He was God from very early on, as can be seen in John 1:1-18, John 20:27-29, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:6-12 and 1 John 5:20. These scripture passages are well-attested not only in the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today, but also in the citations of them by th early church fathers. Now, undoubtedly there are those who will try to skirt around the obvious by attempting to explain away these passages. Their explanations cannot stand without twisting the scriptures, but that will be for another time.

There is also the testimony of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene fathers, who lived during the first two centuries after Christ walked upon this earth. The Trinitarian formula is clearly present in the writings of Saint Clement of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch frequently refers to Jesus as God in his epistles. The anonymous second century epistle known as 2nd Clement states that “we ought so to think of our Lord Jesus Christ as of God, [and] as of the judge of quick and dead…”[3]. But I believe that the clearest testimony comes from Melito of Sardis, who identifies Christ as God who made the heavens and the earth. This is clear from his Paschal homily, where he writes:

The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.

This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.

This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.[4]

All of the early church fathers I have mentioned lived during the first two centuries of Christianity, so it is clear that the beliefs that they have espoused are not the fabrication of a later age.
Read the rest of this entry

  • Date: 26 Jul 2010
  • Categoriess: Apologetics > Christian > Christology > Church History > Religion > Theology
  • Tags: > > > >

    • While you were sleeping…

    Author: Ryft

    Jul 12

  • Date: 12 Jul 2010
  • Categoriess: Society & Culture
  • Tags: >

    • The Prime Directive, anyone?

    Author: Ryft

    Jul 7

    nasa Could someone please explain to me how it is that taxpayers in the U.S. are funding NASA not for scientific space exploration but rather for international Muslim outreach? The last time I checked, NASA and the U.S. Department of State were different federal agencies. When did that change?

    On Wednesday of last week, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was interviewed on an episode of Talk to al-Jazeera. During that interview he described three of the top priorities President Obama had tasked him with for his new job (in response to the question about NASA finding itself at a crossroads):

    When I became the NASA Administrator—well, before I became the NASA Administrator—he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

    He was asked if this is “a sort of diplomatic role to win hearts and minds of Muslims.” Bolden quickly denied that, and claimed President Obama simply wants to draw in “the contributions that are possible from the Muslim nations.” Yet in a speech two weeks earlier at the American University in Cairo, Bolden said that NASA used to work “mostly with countries that are capable of space exploration,” but that has changed in light of Obama’s Cairo initiative:

    [Obama] asked NASA to change [...] by reaching out to ‘non-traditional’ partners and strengthening our cooperation in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and in particular in Muslim-majority nations.

    “NASA has embraced this charge,” Bolden said, adding that NASA “is not only a space exploration agency but also an earth improvement agency.”

    Is the American public aware that their tax dollars are funding the U.S. space agency to patronize Muslims to “feel good” about themselves with soft-diplomacy outreach? As noted by former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, NASA’s purpose is not to inspire Muslims or any other cultural entity. No doubt. Its purpose is to expand our knowledge of space and its attendant technologies. “If by doing great things people are inspired, well, then that’s wonderful,” Griffin said, and then observed, “There is no technology they have that we need” for NASA to accomplish its missions.

    But earlier this year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed in her speech at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar that the Obama administration is embarking on a new era of engagement with Muslim nations “to expand educational opportunities, support entrepreneurs, and promote advances in science and technology.”

    “NASA, our space program,” she said, “has partnered with the Arab Youth Venture Foundation in Dubai to give Arab and American engineering students the chance to work together on NASA missions.”

    Highly advanced rocket technology. Prime Directive, anyone?

    Update: 27 July 2010

    NASA: National Arabic Sensitivity Administration

    (HT: Mike Church)

  • Date: 7 Jul 2010
  • Categoriess: Religion > Science > Society & Culture
  • Tags: > > > > > >

    • Burqas, bathrooms and the public concern

    Author: Mathew

    Feb 13

    While the French government unveiled its plan to ban the burqa worn by some Muslim women, the reign in Maine leaves much to explain by proposing to allow transgendered people to use the bathroom of their choice. The contrast between the two stories is quite clear: the French move to protect its public while the Mainers move aside to endanger theirs.

    Two burqa-wearers walk into a post office …

    The stance taken by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, declaring last year that the burqa was not welcome in France, is one taken in the interests of security and as an act against the debasing of women. The burqa (actually, it is techinically the naqib – a head-to-toe covering that leaves no exposed skin bar slits for the eyes) is seen as something that is incongruent with French society. Yet the ban is not intended to marginalize Muslims or to oppress them in any fashion: the ban would see any form (Muslim or otherwise) of veil or other covering of the face in public become illegal, except at specific festivals and cultural events.

    France has approximately six million Muslims within its borders, of which less than 2000 Muslim women wear the burqa. That’s a mere 0.03% of the French Muslim population. Ought there really be such a fuss?

    Well, to some extent, the French government have recently been given just cause to make such a fuss: a post office was robbed by two burglars just last week. And the burglars were disguised in – yep, you guessed it – burqas.

    Read the rest of this entry

  • Date: 13 Feb 2010
  • Categoriess: Persecution > Politics > Sexuality
  • Tags: > > > > >