k2 - quick question as I dive further into this:

To which Church Fathers are you referring? I recognize that your list and mine (RCC) might be a bit different and I'm certainly not looking for an exhaustive list. I'd look to do a bit more reading.

Thanks!

k2aggie07 said:

---

Well, I never set out to prove anything -- I already said that. So if you're expecting me to call down fire on -my- altar, I got nothin for you. Again, I don't believe in orthodoxy because it's good reading (but it is) or because the fathers were smart (they were). I believe it because my faith in God is confirmed, affirmed, and reaffirmed. It's useful to me... it's real.

Who am I in your blind man analogy? Who are the Fathers? Who are you? I think, to some extent, I've walked through the puddle. After that, when they say "and a thousand miles away, there is an ocean" I believe them.

Your position is tenuous because you're hiding behind a shield of empiricism. Testable hypothesis only result in a test of your interpretative structure of reality, not reality itself. So our posits (mountains or atoms or whether we believe trickle down economics works) are really only subject to affirming or recalcitrant experiences. You're suggesting that because you can't think of a way to subject an experience to one or the other, it's not real. That doesn't follow. Even things we don't know of yet (such as a thing no scientist has introduced as a hypothesis to even think about testing) are real or not. Reality is, our posits stack on top, they're lenses we look through.

You say you could go to Kilimanjaro - sure. You could also read all the books I have, and put yourself to the exact same set of experiences I have with regard to church, participation in liturgy, etc. Do you think those would be affirming or recalcitrant experiences? You don't know. You're happy to have your affirming experiences and observations about God that others reject as valid, but you turn around and say mine are useless or empty. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

---

The blind being lead wasn't an allegory, it was an example. You attempted to create a false equivalence between describing a climb up Kilimanjaro and describing the nature of God. I attempted to show that descriptions of human sensory experience can be verified and that trust can be established even in someone missing one of the senses.

Quote:

---

Your position is tenuous because you're hiding behind a shield of empiricism

---

This is funny. Do you use a magic shield?

The Fathers typically mean those from Ante-Nicene times through St John of Damascus. After that they're not really called Fathers. Since that's pre-schism I guess they're all the same east and west.

You seem to be a proponent of logical positivism. Philosophy has basically moved past that.

Do you consider Polycarp a church father?

St. Polycarp is viewed as a Church Father by both Catholics and Orthodox.

There was a recent suggestion that the Trinitarian formation was not apostolic, or that it was pagan, or that it was formulated at Nicaea. These are all incorrect, both as an article of faith (i.e., that the faith was delivered once for all to the saints) and as is shown by the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I'll link a few excerpts from a handful of them, beginning with St Ignatius.

Remember, the basic premise of the Trinity is:
1. There is One God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equal in Nature, or are of the same substance or essence (homoousia). Everything that we say of God in the universal sense we say of the One Essence.
2. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unique persons. Everything we say of particulars we say of one of the Three.
3. That this is the One God, there is no plurality, no changing, no multiplicity of Gods.

St Ignatius of Antioch, (35-108 AD) was a disciple of the Apostle John. He spoke clearly of the Divinity of Christ, and spoke often of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

He wrote that the Church in Ephesus was "deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God." He told them to beware of false teachers, saying "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible even Jesus Christ our Lord."

He also praised those in Ephesus, saying they had been "stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. You, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travelers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ."

He wrote to the Magnesians

Quote:

---

For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him. If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hopehow shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher?

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

Fare well in the harmony of God, you who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.

---

Just in these excerpts we see that there is One God, that Christ is God and pre-exists, that the Spirit is the same God Jesus Christ.

Here are some relevant Excerpts from St Justin's (c 100-165 AD) writings. St Justin was born in Palestine, converted to Christianity, and taught (as Philo of Alexandria did some three hundred years prior) that the wisdom of Plato and Aristotle was a derivative of the writings of Moses. That is to say, the common pagan mythology of the time was a corruption of Judaic wisdom, and thus to correct it was not introducing a new concept back to Judaeo-Christian thought, but to actually cleans an erroneous offshoot.

In his First Apology he writes:

Quote:

---

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.

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared

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 waterthere is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

We bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit
...
The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spoke to Moses, though He who spoke to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.

---

In his Second Apology he writes

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 God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation God is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained. But Jesus, His name as man and Savior, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men.

---

In his Dialogue with Trypho he writes:

Quote:

---

God begot before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun).

Accordingly He rested, i.e., ceased, when He came from the grace of His Spirit's power, He imparts [gifts] to those who believe in Him, according as He deems each man worthy thereof. I have already said, and do again say, that it had been prophesied that this would be done by Him after His ascension to heaven. It is accordingly said, 'He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts unto the sons of men.' And again, in another prophecy it is said: 'And it shall come to pass after this, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh, and on My servants, and on My handmaids, and they shall prophesy.'

---

Showing here that He came, and that the Spirit is the same Spirit of Christ as it is the Father.

St Melito of Sardis wrote the following on the nature of Christ c177 AD

Quote:

---

For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to His baptism, that His soul and His body, His human nature like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination. For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures: of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages.

---

St Athenagoras wrote a lengthy apology (c180 AD), explaining like St Justin and others that there were useful grains of truth embedded in the wisdom of the Greeks, but that they were corrupted by the errors of polytheism. His explanation of the Trinity is extremely well formed and very much in unison with the orthodox faith.

Quote:

---

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Word, and set in order, and is kept in being I have sufficiently demonstrated. I say his Word, for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let anyone think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason [nous and logos] of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Reason); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things... The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. The Lord, it says, made me, the beginning of His ways to His works. (Proverbs 8:22) The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?

---

...Later he continues

Quote:

---

For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son His Word, and a Holy Spirit, united in essencethe Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire.

---

St Theophilus of Antioch wrote c 181 AD:

Quote:

---

God, then, having His own Word internal within His own self, 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, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle, because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him.

---

Discussing the creation, he likens the creation account of the first three days a type of the Trinity, while the fourth is a type of Man. The most interesting part, of course, being the explicit use of the Trinity:

Quote:

---

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

---

This use of God, Word, and Wisdom as equivalent to Father, Son, and Spirit is also found in St Irenaeus Against Heresies: "For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness"

St Theophilus also writes:

Quote:

---

The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counselor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word, but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (John 1:1) showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence. The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

One can see how consistently and harmoniously all the prophets spoke, having given utterance through one and the same Spirit concerning the unity of God

---

That's as far as I got compiling excerpts before I figured it was getting redundant, but the point is clear, I think.

I'm not sure that Ehrman's argument from silence is very strong. He would have to show that John 1:1 is adverse information, rather than supporting or clarifying. Nothing in any of the synoptic gospels suggest that He was not the Word, and in fact they do show that He is God. So docetism, modalism, etc may have been prevalent but just as Ehrman suggests they may be prevalent today, it doesn't mean that they were the teaching of the Church. Appealing to modalist bishops of 2nd century Rome doesn't mean all that much (2nd century Rome was a wild and wooly place with its share of schisms and controversy).

Besides, I already refuted the bulk of what Ehrman said in this video. One, he says Tertullian coined the term Trinity. St Theophilus of Antioch died around 183 AD, well before Tertullian wrote, and he used the term. Two, St Athenagoras of Athens wrote that God was One Essence, around 177 or 180 (also quoted above) which is the confession of Nicaea. Look at St Melito of Sardis' quote. Look at St Justin's, he explicitly identifies Christ with the pre-existing Word.

Ehrman says later we threw up our hands and said "well, you know, its just a mystery." Unfortunately St Paul said that Christ is God's mystery a long time before that, saying that he wanted the Colossians to be "filled with the full riches of complete understanding, so that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ." Our Lord Himself said "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables." The whole Christian faith is a called mystery (cf Eph 6:19, 1 Tim 3:9).

He says they're logical, and that the Trinity is then just the "winner", and that the early Christians didn't believe that. I say that's another argument from silence, combined with a skeptic's denial of metaphysical revelation -- the Truth is not true because it is logical, and many logical arguments about the divine are false. He says the earliest Christians said Christ was exalted, yet St Ignatius clearly did not believe this (see quotes above), and he was a disciple of St John. St Justin didn't believe that, and it wasn't any 300 years later.

In short: boo!

As a nonbeliever, I have absolutely no desire nor aptitude to get this deep in the weeds w you.

What I do know is that ehrman is one of the top textual critics on the planet. I doubt very seriously that he's hasn't given strong consideration to all your points.

I think Ehrman has his own agenda. I've read a couple of his books and they're interesting, but he writes to a non-scholarly audience and doesn't always answer questions accordingly. If he wants to say the things he says in that video and be taken seriously, he should give references and avoid false or misleading statements. I pointed out several, so youre left with a choice. Either those quotes above are fabricated or Ehrman omitted them (out of ignorance or intentional is your choice, I don't care which).

Yes, ehrman does speak more to a layman as a general rule.

You think that means he can't get in the weeds? Good grief. I also posted an 8 minute video or something like that. There are literally hours of his YouTube videos and he's pretty well written.

I got an idea. Just copy and paste your comments in an email to him. I'm sure he would be glad to respond. Then you could post his detailed answer to us here.

So it's ok to say false or unsubstantiated things in a lecture if you say them in sound bites?

So ehrman is either a liar or wildly reckless.

Yeah, okay. Lol.

You posted a video, I pointed out that there are some pretty solid omissions to his point, and somehow it's my fault?

Do you think I made those quotes up? I'm sorry Ehrman didn't include them in his timeline.

For what it's my worth tying Ehrman to being sketchy is not the first time.

Here is an article by another NT critic describing how he is disingenuous.
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/

Here's one calling him an out and out liar.
http://americanvision.org/4244/whos-really-telling-the-lies-dr-ehrman/

Ehrman is slick, he is good at his partial truths. Much of what he says is true, until you get to his closing. The dude skips over basic Christian teachings.

1) Truth- The Mystery of the Trinity was debated and it did develope over time. The nature of Jesus was debated. The exact words mystery of the Holy Trinity are not in the bible, but the basis and foundation and relationship between Jesus, God and Holy Spirit are there:

Matt 28 18-19 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, (this was written 60- 80AD)

Luke 3:21-22 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." (this was written (65-80 AD)

2) At 9:40 video mark- right at the end. We catch Erhman with his lies (because that is how he operates, he puts out truths and then closes with his lies). He says Christians changed their mind "300 years later" Jesus was made a divine being by God, did not always exist. And yet we know in Gospel of John was written roughly 90 AD. And that John's point was that Jesus had always existed. This is the beginning of arguably the most famous book in the Christian Bible!!! We all know Ehrman knows this.

John 1 1-14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. ....And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

Ehrman is a fraud, withholds basic information from those who are ignorant.

More evidence to Ehrman's closing statement on the Trinity being a concept that was not around at all until 300 years later. Didache (first catechism) written roughly 80AD. Similar verse as Matthew

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. - Didache

Wow sounds a lot like the Trinity! that was developed 300 years later (Sarcasim). And the expert Bible scholar does not know this? The dude is a fraud. he knows he just chooses to ignore it, because it hurts his argument.


Read Scott Hanh or someone else creditable. Scott Hahn- Understanding Scriptures

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think Ehrman has his own agenda. I've read a couple of his books and they're interesting, but he writes to a non-scholarly audience and doesn't always answer questions accordingly. If he wants to say the things he says in that video and be taken seriously, he should give references and avoid false or misleading statements. I pointed out several, so youre left with a choice. Either those quotes above are fabricated or Ehrman omitted them (out of ignorance or intentional is your choice, I don't care which).

---

Amen Brother!

It's quite shocking that those that hold closely to inerrancy don't like him much.

What's not shocking is just you don't realize that neither of those links support innerancy.

Just for funsies, here's one more. St Clement of Rome was born c 35 and became the Bishop of Rome in 88 AD. He died 99 AD. There are several epistles attributed to St Clement that are spurious, but the Epistle to the Corinthians is considered genuine (even by Ehrman, for what it's worth).

As a background, c58 AD we think St Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. St Clement would have been around 25 when St Paul's epistle made it to Rome, and around 30 when St Paul was martyred. St Clement was either the second or third bishop of Rome after St Peter, and by any account he knew and was appointed by St Peter personally.

This letter is considered to have been written around 96 AD (but perhaps as early as 80 AD). In it, St Clement repeatedly identifies that the Holy Spirit is the voice of prophecy (e.g., "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit"). This is unsurprising, but the more interesting fact is the linking of the Holy Spirit to the person of Jesus Christ -- for example, he says "Now the faith which is in Christ confirms all these [admonitions]. For He Himself by the Holy Spirit thus addresses us". How could something that was not, speak before it was?

We also see the common Trinitarian formulation: "For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live..." Clearly we have three divine persons, yet one God, because St Clement also writes "Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ?"

St Clement even carefully notes the difference between the birth of Christ according to the flesh "From [Abraham] also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh." This difference is amplified by the use of the proof text of Trinitarian divine generation (bold and italics) later, when St Clement writes:

Quote:

---

This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Savior, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvelous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Hebrews 1:3-4 For it is thus written, Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: You are my Son, today have I begotten You. Ask of me, and I will give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession.

---

All of the bolded portions are common in Trinitarian understanding of Christ - He has the Light of God, being God.

The letter references Father, Son, and Spirit as God interchangeably, as one would reasonably expect someone with a belief in the Trinity to do.

Interestingly enough, St Clement also uses a phrase that St Maximos, St Dionysius the Areopagite would later discuss quite a bit, that we are "portions of" Christ ("Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One...). I never noticed that before. Neat.

Ehrman is suggesting that by not having a rigorous definition of the doctrine the underpinning beliefs effectively didn't exist. This is similar to arguing that people didn't know they would fall down before Newton rigorously defined gravity.

And even Ehrman notes this, that the idea that there are Three but only One is as old as the Faith. What he's conflating in that video is a couple of different doctrines - that of the Incarnation of the Word, the Trinity, and later Christological doctrines (e.g., the dual nature of Christ). This has nothing to do with a belief in the Trinity.