Early Christianity and Helenisitic Judaism Wikipedia pages

Sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is about religion. "Sinful", "Sinner", and "Sinners" redirect here. For the trigonometric function commonly written as sin, see Sine. For other uses, see Sin (disambiguation), Sinful (disambiguation), Sinner (disambiguation), and Sinners (disambiguation).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)



 A Sistine Chapel fresco depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for their sin of eating from the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".[5]
Sins fall in a spectrum from minor errors to deadly misdeeds. The Catholic Church regards the least corrupt sins as venial sins—which are part of human living and carry immediate consequences on earth, and, if unrepented for, more painful purgation, assuming the person is destined to heaven, as it is written in the formation letter "Purgatory", "most of the early Fathers of the Church speak of a cleansing fire, though we cannot tell whether this means actual or spiritual fire." [6] Conversely, sins of great evil are mortal sins—which bring the consequence of hell if they are not addressed either through an act of perfect contrition or going to confession about them.
Sins of [[Seven deadly sins|careless living] are considered [7] destructive and lead to greater sins. Another concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and so, because the human being's fixation upon the temporal and its deceitful pleasures distracts and diverts human beings from righteousness, accordingly its excessive savouring is considered a sin.
Many Christians also categorize sin as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam.[8] Believers in this doctrine of original sin hold that like a disease, sin is the curse that poisons the heart of every human thereafter; that human nature is weakened by original sin, and is therefore inclined to sin. Romans 3:22-24 states: "Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: / For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. / Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,".[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Religions 2.1 Bahá'í
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Christianity
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Islam
2.6 Judaism
2.7 Shinto
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 Bibliography
6 External links

Etymology[edit]
The word derives from "Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'".[10] The Biblical terms translated from New Testament Greek (αμαρτία - amartia) and from Hebrew as "sin" or "syn" originate in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[11] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a "miss".)
Religions[edit]
Bahá'í[edit]


Main article: Bahá'í views on sin
In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhist views on sin
Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[12] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity. Karma is the direct result of the intention. Action is secondary. Karma whether good or bad is performed with Mind, Body and words would bring pleasant or unpleasant results. Defilement in mind cause the Karma and Karma defiles the being. One needs to purify his being with Four Satipatthanas to free oneself from the vicious circle. The purification reduces suffering and in the end one reaches Nibbana, the ultimate purification. An enlightened being is free of all the suffering and karmas. He would never be born again.
Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Hamartiology and Christian views on sin
See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant and Seven deadly sins
In the Old Testament, some sins were punishable by death in different forms, while most sins are forgiven by burnt offerings. Christians consider the Old Covenant to be fulfilled by the Gospel.
In the New Testament however, the forgiveness of sin is effected through repentance which involves confessing the sin. Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for his sin.[13] The unregenerate man is expected to confess his sins to God through repentance in order to be restored to right relationship with God. The unregenerate man has never before been in a favorable relationship with God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, he enters into a union with God which abides forever.[14] In the Epistle to the Romans 6:23, it is mentioned that "the wages of sin is death", which is commonly interpreted as, if one does not repent for his sins, such person will not merit salvation. [15]
In Western Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God even though He has extreme love for mankind. It has damaged and completely severed the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Humanity was destined for life with God when Adam disobeyed God. The Bible in John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan and the desire to be "like God" (Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).
 Original sin is a Western concept that states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[16]
The snake who seduced Eve to eat of the fruit was punished by having it and its kind being made to crawl on the ground and God set an enmity between them and Eve's descendants (Genesis 3:14-15). Eve was punished by the pangs of childbirth and the sorrow of bringing about life that would eventually age, sicken and die (Genesis 3:16). The second part of the curse about being subordinate to Adam originates from her creation from one of Adam's ribs to be his helper (Genesis 2:18-25); the curse now clarifies that she must now obey her husband and desire only him. Adam was punished by having to work endlessly to feed himself and his family. The land would bring forth both thistles and thorns to be cleared and herbs and grain to be planted, nurtured, and harvested. The second part of the curse about his mortality is from his origin as red clay - he is from the land and he and his descendants would return to it when buried after death. When Adam's son Cain slew his brother Abel, he introduced murder into the world (Genesis 4:8-10). For his punishment, God banished him as a fugitive, but first marked him with a sign that would protect him and his descendants from harm (Genesis 4:11-16).
One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[17] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven; Matthew 12:30-32 : " 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 And Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and less serious sins called venial sin. Mortal sins cause one to lose salvation unless the sinner repents and venial sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[18]
Jesus was said to have paid double for the complete mass of sins past, present, and to come in future. Even inevitable sin from our weakness has already been cleansed.
The Lamb of God was and is God Himself and therefore sinless. In the Old Testament, Leviticus 16:21 states that ‘the laying on of hands’ was the action that the High Priest Aaron was ordered to do yearly by God to take sins of Israel's nation onto a spotless young lamb.
Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is similar to Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is considered a crime against the laws of God, which is known as (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term apradha is used for grave offences.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islamic views on sin
Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that "the soul is certainly prone to evil, unless the Lord does bestow His Mercy" and that even the prophets do not absolve themselves of the blame.[Quran 12:53] It is believed that Iblis (Devil) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin. Sin is also defined in the hadith, a collection of Muhammad's sayings. It is reported by An-Nawwas bin Sam'an:

"The Prophet (Muhammad) said, "Piety is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt and you do not like people to know it.""
— [Muslim]
Wabisah bin Ma’bad reported:

“I went to Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and he asked me: “Have you come to inquire about piety?” I replied in the affirmative. Then he said: “Ask your heart regarding it. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart, even if people pronounce it lawful and give you verdicts on such matters again and again.”
—[Ahmad and Ad-Darmi]]
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, a Hadith is narrated:

Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."
—Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Hadith no. 2499
In Sahih Muslim, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Huraira narrated:

Allah's apostle said," By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them."
—Sahih Muslim, 37:6621
In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:
sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)
One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).

"Say O my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful."
— Qur'an, Az-Zumar)
Judaism[edit]
Main articles: Jewish views on sin and Golden mean (philosophy) § Judaism
Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a sin. Judaism teaches that to sin is natural thing because there is no man that is perfect and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".(Genesis 8:21). The main thing is to try your best.[19] Sin furthermore has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins with willful intent go without consequence. Unintentional violations of the mitzvot are not considered as sins, since no one can be punished for something he did not know was wrong. "Sins by error" are considered as less severe sins. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate such "sins by error", that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[20][21]
All willful sin has consequence. The completely righteous suffer for their sins (by humiliation, poverty and suffering that God sends them) in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. Ihe in between (not complete righteous or complete wicked), repent their sins after death and thereafter join the righteous. And the complete wicked cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but after death. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave Gehinnom, because they do not or cannot repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[21] [22]
Shinto[edit]
Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".[23]
See also[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Sin
Actual sin
Asceticism
Devil
Fall of Man
Hamartia
Hedonism
Internal sin
Morality
Mortal sin
Original sin
Religious law
Seven deadly sins
Sin-offering
Taboo
Total depravity
Venial sin
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther Michael G. Baylor - 1977, "defined sin, in an objective sense, as contempt of god" page 27
2.Jump up ^ The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner - 1999, Page 523
3.Jump up ^ The fall to violence: original sin in relational theology Marjorie Suchocki - 1994 Page 29
4.Jump up ^ Five Views on Sanctification - page 188, Melvin Easterday Dieter, Stanley N. Gundry - 1996 "The other is 'deliberate violation of God's known will"
5.Jump up ^ Augustine eventually (after the Pelagian controversy) defined sin as a hardened heart, a loss of love for God, a disposition of the heart to depart from God because of inordinate self-love (see Augustine On Grace and Free Will in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P. Holmes, vol. 5, 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
7.Jump up ^ "Holy Spirit Interactive: The Seven Deadly Sins - The List". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
8.Jump up ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
9.Jump up ^ Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Romans 3:22-24
10.Jump up ^ "Oxford English Dictionary". Oed.com. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
11.Jump up ^ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books: New York, 1989. p. 123.
12.Jump up ^ Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Soka Gakkai, "Three Poisons": "Greed, anger, and foolishness. The fundamental evils inherent in life that give rise to human suffering."
13.Jump up ^ Schmaus, Michael (1975). Dogma: The Church as Sacrament. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 220,222. ISBN 0-7425-3203-8. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
14.Jump up ^ Willmington, H.L. (1981). Willmington's Guide to the Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 725. ISBN 0-8423-8804-4.
15.Jump up ^ "Romans 6:23". Biblehub. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin". Newadvent.org. 1911-02-01. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
17.Jump up ^ Hanegraaff, Hank. The Bible Answer Book pp. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
18.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472. The Vatican.
19.Jump up ^ "Maimonides on Life - Torah.org". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
20.Jump up ^ "Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot) - Jewish Virtual Library". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Rabbi Michael Skobac. "Leviticus 17:11". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
22.Jump up ^ "Reward and Punishment". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
23.Jump up ^ The Essence of Shinto: The Spiritual Heart of Japan by Motohisa Yamakage
Bibliography[edit]
Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-12890-0.
Granoff; P E ; Shinohara, Koichi; eds. (2012), Sins and Sinners: Perspectives from Asian Religions. Brill. ISBN 9004229469.
Hein, David. "Regrets Only: A Theology of Remorse." The Anglican 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 5–6.
Lewis, C.S. "Miserable Offenders": an Interpretation of [sinfulness and] Prayer Book Language [about it], in series, The Advent Papers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [196-].
Pieper, Josef. The Concept of Sin. Edward T. Oakes SJ (translation from German). South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Schumacher, Meinolf. Sündenschmutz und Herzensreinheit: Studien zur Metaphorik der Sünde in lateinischer und deutscher Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: Fink, 1996.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sins.
 Look up sin in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Different Kinds of Sins (Catholic)





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology





















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Theology






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins














































  


Categories: Christian hamartiology
Christian philosophy
Crimes in religion
Religious belief and doctrine
Sin
Religious terminology
Vices
Crime










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Acèh
العربية
Aymar aru
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
ChiShona
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ಕನ್ನಡ
Kiswahili
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Саха тыла
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 May 2015, at 13:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin









Sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is about religion. "Sinful", "Sinner", and "Sinners" redirect here. For the trigonometric function commonly written as sin, see Sine. For other uses, see Sin (disambiguation), Sinful (disambiguation), Sinner (disambiguation), and Sinners (disambiguation).


 This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)



 A Sistine Chapel fresco depicts the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden for their sin of eating from the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".[5]
Sins fall in a spectrum from minor errors to deadly misdeeds. The Catholic Church regards the least corrupt sins as venial sins—which are part of human living and carry immediate consequences on earth, and, if unrepented for, more painful purgation, assuming the person is destined to heaven, as it is written in the formation letter "Purgatory", "most of the early Fathers of the Church speak of a cleansing fire, though we cannot tell whether this means actual or spiritual fire." [6] Conversely, sins of great evil are mortal sins—which bring the consequence of hell if they are not addressed either through an act of perfect contrition or going to confession about them.
Sins of [[Seven deadly sins|careless living] are considered [7] destructive and lead to greater sins. Another concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and so, because the human being's fixation upon the temporal and its deceitful pleasures distracts and diverts human beings from righteousness, accordingly its excessive savouring is considered a sin.
Many Christians also categorize sin as an inevitable act that was passed down from generation to generation by the common ancestor, Adam.[8] Believers in this doctrine of original sin hold that like a disease, sin is the curse that poisons the heart of every human thereafter; that human nature is weakened by original sin, and is therefore inclined to sin. Romans 3:22-24 states: "Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction: / For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. / Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,".[9]


Contents  [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Religions 2.1 Bahá'í
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Christianity
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Islam
2.6 Judaism
2.7 Shinto
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 Bibliography
6 External links

Etymology[edit]
The word derives from "Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'".[10] The Biblical terms translated from New Testament Greek (αμαρτία - amartia) and from Hebrew as "sin" or "syn" originate in archery and literally refer to missing the "gold" at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[11] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a "miss".)
Religions[edit]
Bahá'í[edit]


Main article: Bahá'í views on sin
In the Bahá'í Faith, humans are considered naturally good (perfect), fundamentally spiritual beings. Human beings were created because of God's immeasurable love. However, the Bahá'í teachings compare the human heart to a mirror, which, if turned away from the light of the sun (i.e. God), is incapable of receiving God's love.
Buddhism[edit]
Main article: Buddhist views on sin
Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin, but believes in the principle of karma, whereby suffering is the inevitable consequence of greed, anger, and delusion (known as the Three poisons).[12] While there is no direct Buddhist equivalent of the Abrahamic concept of sin, wrongdoing is recognized in Buddhism. The concept of Buddhist ethics is consequentialist in nature and is not based upon duty towards any deity. Karma is the direct result of the intention. Action is secondary. Karma whether good or bad is performed with Mind, Body and words would bring pleasant or unpleasant results. Defilement in mind cause the Karma and Karma defiles the being. One needs to purify his being with Four Satipatthanas to free oneself from the vicious circle. The purification reduces suffering and in the end one reaches Nibbana, the ultimate purification. An enlightened being is free of all the suffering and karmas. He would never be born again.
Christianity[edit]
Main articles: Hamartiology and Christian views on sin
See also: Christian views on the Old Covenant and Seven deadly sins
In the Old Testament, some sins were punishable by death in different forms, while most sins are forgiven by burnt offerings. Christians consider the Old Covenant to be fulfilled by the Gospel.
In the New Testament however, the forgiveness of sin is effected through repentance which involves confessing the sin. Sin is forgiven, when the sinner acknowledges, confesses, and repents for his sin.[13] The unregenerate man is expected to confess his sins to God through repentance in order to be restored to right relationship with God. The unregenerate man has never before been in a favorable relationship with God. When, as a part of his salvation, he is forgiven, he enters into a union with God which abides forever.[14] In the Epistle to the Romans 6:23, it is mentioned that "the wages of sin is death", which is commonly interpreted as, if one does not repent for his sins, such person will not merit salvation. [15]
In Western Christianity, sin is believed to alienate the sinner from God even though He has extreme love for mankind. It has damaged and completely severed the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as a satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Humanity was destined for life with God when Adam disobeyed God. The Bible in John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting."
In Eastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan and the desire to be "like God" (Genesis 3:5) and thus in direct opposition to God's will (see the account of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis).
 Original sin is a Western concept that states that sin entered the human world through Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden and that human beings have since lived with the consequences of this first sin.[16]
The snake who seduced Eve to eat of the fruit was punished by having it and its kind being made to crawl on the ground and God set an enmity between them and Eve's descendants (Genesis 3:14-15). Eve was punished by the pangs of childbirth and the sorrow of bringing about life that would eventually age, sicken and die (Genesis 3:16). The second part of the curse about being subordinate to Adam originates from her creation from one of Adam's ribs to be his helper (Genesis 2:18-25); the curse now clarifies that she must now obey her husband and desire only him. Adam was punished by having to work endlessly to feed himself and his family. The land would bring forth both thistles and thorns to be cleared and herbs and grain to be planted, nurtured, and harvested. The second part of the curse about his mortality is from his origin as red clay - he is from the land and he and his descendants would return to it when buried after death. When Adam's son Cain slew his brother Abel, he introduced murder into the world (Genesis 4:8-10). For his punishment, God banished him as a fugitive, but first marked him with a sign that would protect him and his descendants from harm (Genesis 4:11-16).
One concept of sin deals with things that exist on Earth, but not in Heaven. Food, for example, while a necessary good for the (health of the temporal) body, is not of (eternal) transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin.[17] The unforgivable sin (or eternal sin) is a sin that can never be forgiven; Matthew 12:30-32 : " 30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. 31 And Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
In Catholic Christianity sins are classified into grave sins called mortal sins and less serious sins called venial sin. Mortal sins cause one to lose salvation unless the sinner repents and venial sins require some sort of penance either on Earth or in Purgatory.[18]
Jesus was said to have paid double for the complete mass of sins past, present, and to come in future. Even inevitable sin from our weakness has already been cleansed.
The Lamb of God was and is God Himself and therefore sinless. In the Old Testament, Leviticus 16:21 states that ‘the laying on of hands’ was the action that the High Priest Aaron was ordered to do yearly by God to take sins of Israel's nation onto a spotless young lamb.
Hinduism[edit]
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes, which automatically brings negative consequences. This is similar to Abrahamic sin in the sense that pāpa is considered a crime against the laws of God, which is known as (1) Dharma, or moral order, and (2) one's own self, but another term apradha is used for grave offences.
Islam[edit]
Main article: Islamic views on sin
Muslims see sin (dhanb, thanb ذنب) as anything that goes against the commands of God (Allah). Islam teaches that sin is an act and not a state of being. The Qur'an teaches that "the soul is certainly prone to evil, unless the Lord does bestow His Mercy" and that even the prophets do not absolve themselves of the blame.[Quran 12:53] It is believed that Iblis (Devil) has a significant role in tempting humankind towards sin. Sin is also defined in the hadith, a collection of Muhammad's sayings. It is reported by An-Nawwas bin Sam'an:

"The Prophet (Muhammad) said, "Piety is good manner, and sin is that which creates doubt and you do not like people to know it.""
— [Muslim]
Wabisah bin Ma’bad reported:

“I went to Messenger of Allah (SAWS) and he asked me: “Have you come to inquire about piety?” I replied in the affirmative. Then he said: “Ask your heart regarding it. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart, even if people pronounce it lawful and give you verdicts on such matters again and again.”
—[Ahmad and Ad-Darmi]]
In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, a Hadith is narrated:

Allah's apostle said, "Every son of Adam sins, the best of the sinners are those who repent."
—Sunan al-Tirmidhi,Hadith no. 2499
In Sahih Muslim, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and Abu Huraira narrated:

Allah's apostle said," By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them."
—Sahih Muslim, 37:6621
In Islam, there are several gradations of sin:
sayyia, khatia: mistakes (Suras 7:168; 17:31; 40:45; 47:19 48:2)
itada, junah, dhanb: immorality (Suras 2:190,229; 17:17 33:55)
haraam: transgressions (Suras 5:4; 6:146)
ithm, dhulam, fujur, su, fasad, fisk, kufr: wickedness and depravity (Suras 2:99, 205; 4:50, 112, 123, 136; 12:79; 38:62; 82:14)
shirk: ascribing a partner to God; idolatry and polytheism (Sura 4:48)
One may sincerely repent to God for the wrongs committed and seek forgiveness, as stated in the Quran, "Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, remove from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls in the company of the righteous." (Al-Imran.193/ 3.193).

"Say O my slaves who have transgressed against their own souls despair not of the mercy of God, verily He forgives all sins, verily He is the oft-forgiving, most merciful."
— Qur'an, Az-Zumar)
Judaism[edit]
Main articles: Jewish views on sin and Golden mean (philosophy) § Judaism
Judaism regards the violation of any of the 613 commandments as a sin. Judaism teaches that to sin is natural thing because there is no man that is perfect and everyone has an inclination to do evil "from his youth".(Genesis 8:21). The main thing is to try your best.[19] Sin furthermore has many classifications and degrees. Some sins are punishable with death by the court, others with death by heaven, others with lashes, and others without such punishment, but no sins with willful intent go without consequence. Unintentional violations of the mitzvot are not considered as sins, since no one can be punished for something he did not know was wrong. "Sins by error" are considered as less severe sins. When the Temple yet stood in Jerusalem, people would offer sacrifices for their misdeeds. The atoning aspect of Karbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, Karbanot only expiate such "sins by error", that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, Karbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, Karbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.[20][21]
All willful sin has consequence. The completely righteous suffer for their sins (by humiliation, poverty and suffering that God sends them) in this world and receive their reward in the world to come. Ihe in between (not complete righteous or complete wicked), repent their sins after death and thereafter join the righteous. And the complete wicked cannot correct their sins in this world and hence do not suffer them here, but after death. The very evil do not repent even at the gates of hell. Such people prosper in this world to receive their reward for any good deed, but cannot be cleansed by and hence cannot leave Gehinnom, because they do not or cannot repent. This world can therefore seem unjust where the righteous suffer, while the wicked prosper. Many great thinkers have contemplated this, but God's justice is long, precise and just.[21] [22]
Shinto[edit]
Evil deeds fall into two categories in Shinto: amatsu tsumi, "the most pernicious crimes of all", and kunitsu tsumi, "more commonly called misdemeanors".[23]
See also[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Sin
Actual sin
Asceticism
Devil
Fall of Man
Hamartia
Hedonism
Internal sin
Morality
Mortal sin
Original sin
Religious law
Seven deadly sins
Sin-offering
Taboo
Total depravity
Venial sin
Notes and references[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Action and Person: Conscience in Late Scholasticism and the Young Luther Michael G. Baylor - 1977, "defined sin, in an objective sense, as contempt of god" page 27
2.Jump up ^ The Theology of the Oral Torah: Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner - 1999, Page 523
3.Jump up ^ The fall to violence: original sin in relational theology Marjorie Suchocki - 1994 Page 29
4.Jump up ^ Five Views on Sanctification - page 188, Melvin Easterday Dieter, Stanley N. Gundry - 1996 "The other is 'deliberate violation of God's known will"
5.Jump up ^ Augustine eventually (after the Pelagian controversy) defined sin as a hardened heart, a loss of love for God, a disposition of the heart to depart from God because of inordinate self-love (see Augustine On Grace and Free Will in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, trans. P. Holmes, vol. 5, 30-31 [14-15]).
6.Jump up ^ [1][dead link]
7.Jump up ^ "Holy Spirit Interactive: The Seven Deadly Sins - The List". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
8.Jump up ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
9.Jump up ^ Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims Version, Romans 3:22-24
10.Jump up ^ "Oxford English Dictionary". Oed.com. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
11.Jump up ^ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage Books: New York, 1989. p. 123.
12.Jump up ^ Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism, Soka Gakkai, "Three Poisons": "Greed, anger, and foolishness. The fundamental evils inherent in life that give rise to human suffering."
13.Jump up ^ Schmaus, Michael (1975). Dogma: The Church as Sacrament. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 220,222. ISBN 0-7425-3203-8. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
14.Jump up ^ Willmington, H.L. (1981). Willmington's Guide to the Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. p. 725. ISBN 0-8423-8804-4.
15.Jump up ^ "Romans 6:23". Biblehub. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
16.Jump up ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin". Newadvent.org. 1911-02-01. Retrieved 2013-09-16.
17.Jump up ^ Hanegraaff, Hank. The Bible Answer Book pp. 18-21. ISBN 0-8499-9544-2
18.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 1472. The Vatican.
19.Jump up ^ "Maimonides on Life - Torah.org". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
20.Jump up ^ "Sacrifices and Offerings (Karbanot) - Jewish Virtual Library". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Rabbi Michael Skobac. "Leviticus 17:11". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
22.Jump up ^ "Reward and Punishment". Retrieved 1 March 2015.
23.Jump up ^ The Essence of Shinto: The Spiritual Heart of Japan by Motohisa Yamakage
Bibliography[edit]
Fredriksen, Paula. Sin: The Early History of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-691-12890-0.
Granoff; P E ; Shinohara, Koichi; eds. (2012), Sins and Sinners: Perspectives from Asian Religions. Brill. ISBN 9004229469.
Hein, David. "Regrets Only: A Theology of Remorse." The Anglican 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 5–6.
Lewis, C.S. "Miserable Offenders": an Interpretation of [sinfulness and] Prayer Book Language [about it], in series, The Advent Papers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Forward Movement Publications, [196-].
Pieper, Josef. The Concept of Sin. Edward T. Oakes SJ (translation from German). South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine's Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890318-08-6
Schumacher, Meinolf. Sündenschmutz und Herzensreinheit: Studien zur Metaphorik der Sünde in lateinischer und deutscher Literatur des Mittelalters. Munich: Fink, 1996.
External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sins.
 Look up sin in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The Different Kinds of Sins (Catholic)





[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology





















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Theology






































































































































































































































































































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Seven Deadly Sins














































  


Categories: Christian hamartiology
Christian philosophy
Crimes in religion
Religious belief and doctrine
Sin
Religious terminology
Vices
Crime










Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Acèh
العربية
Aymar aru
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Brezhoneg
Català
Čeština
ChiShona
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Gàidhlig
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Italiano
עברית
ಕನ್ನಡ
Kiswahili
Кыргызча
Latina
Latviešu
Lietuvių
Limburgs
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
नेपाल भाषा
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Runa Simi
Русский
Саха тыла
Shqip
Sicilianu
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Татарча/tatarça
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 16 May 2015, at 13:34.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin









Original sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).


 It has been suggested that ancestral sin be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2015.



 Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens
See also: Fate of the unlearned
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which Catholic Church then declared heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[10] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone. However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[11] The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[12][13] The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam.[14][15] Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.


Contents  [hide]
1 History of the doctrine 1.1 Augustine
1.2 Cassian
1.3 Church reaction
1.4 Protestant reformation
1.5 Council of Trent
2 Denominational views 2.1 Roman Catholicism
2.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.3 Classical Anglicanism
2.4 Methodism
2.5 Seventh-day Adventism
2.6 Jehovah's Witnesses
2.7 Mormonism
2.8 Swedenborgianism
3 Islam
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links

History of the doctrine[edit]



Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The formalized doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd-century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]
The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]
Augustine[edit]



Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[24] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[25][26] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[27] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[28] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[29] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[30]
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[31] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[32] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[33][34]
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[35][36] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[37] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[38] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[39] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[40]
Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[41]
Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[42] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[47] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[48] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[49] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[50] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.
Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[51]
Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:

[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[52]
Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[53]
Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[54]
In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2]
Denominational views[edit]



 Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950–955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[55]
The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[56][57] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[58] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[59] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[60]
The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[61]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[59] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[62]
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[63] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.
Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[65] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[66]
Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[42] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[67] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[68]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[69] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[70]
On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[71][72]
Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[73]
However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:

Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[74]
Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[75]
Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[76] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[77] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[78] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[79]
In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:

The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[79]
Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[79] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[80] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[81]
Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[82]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[83][84] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove to that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[85]
Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[83][84][85][86][87][88] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[89]
Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, contains an original sin doctrine in which humanity inherited a fallen and depraved nature from Adam.[90] Young children, however, are thought to be held innocent until an age of accountability.[91] As Mormon doctrines developed, founder Joseph Smith ultimately taught that humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but could progress eternally to become like God.[92] He wrote as an Article of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[93] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[92] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[94]
Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[95] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[96] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[97] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.[98]
Islam[edit]
The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:
"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?'" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.
"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻraf :23
".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122
"(God) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected].' " Surat al-Aʻraf:24–25.
"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41
Criticism[edit]
Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, that was accepted by the Church, was based on a mis-translation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[99]
In an 8-page contribution, I.J.J. Spangenberg has stated:

Darwin,[100][101] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[102] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[103]
That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[104] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[105] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[106] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[107] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".[108]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Actual sin
Ancestral sin
Christian views on sin
Deadly sin
Divine grace
Eternal sin (aka unforgivable or unpardonable sin)
Fall of man
Hamartiology
Immaculate Conception
Incurvatus in se
Internal sin
Justification (theology)
Mortal sin
Pandora's box
Prevenient grace
Sin
The Antichrist (book)
Theodicy and the Bible#The Fall and freedom of the will
Total depravity
Venial sin
Problem of evil
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Examples: Alexander Golitzin, On the Mystical Life by Saint Symeon (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-88141-144-7), p.119
Adam L. Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789–1861 (University of Missouri Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-8262-1567-3), p. 190
Marcelle Bartolo-Abel, God's Gift to Humanity (Apostolate–The Divine Heart 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833480-1-6), p. 32
Ann Hassan, Annotations to Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (Punctum Books 2012 ISBN 978-1-4681-2984-7, p. 62
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
3.Jump up ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
4.Jump up ^ Peter Nathan - The Original View of Original Sin - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
5.Jump up ^ Phil Porvaznik - Original Sin Explained and Defended Evangelical Catholic Apologetics - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Preamble and Articles of Faith - V. Sin, Original and Personal - Church of the Nazarene. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Are Babies Born with Sin? - Topical Bible Studies. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
8.Jump up ^ Original Sin - Psalm 51:5 - Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
9.Jump up ^ "Jansenius and Jansenism" in The Catholic Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ SIN: – Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Shaul Magid (2008). From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Indiana University Press. p. 238. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
12.Jump up ^ Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin – Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.
13.Jump up ^ Judaism's Rejection Of Original Sin While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
14.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm/
15.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm
16.Jump up ^ J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) p. 171, referred to in Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 433
17.Jump up ^ Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church (B&H Publishing 2007 ISBN 978-0-8054-2640-3), p. 433
18.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 255 & 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
19.Jump up ^ H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004) p. 71
20.Jump up ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 104
21.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), p. 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
22.Jump up ^ Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1, Early and Eastern (New York; London: C. Scribner's sons, 1932), p. 101
23.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 258–259. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
24.Jump up ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
25.Jump up ^ ORIGINAL SIN- Biblical Apologetic Studies - Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
26.Jump up ^ William Nicholson - A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
28.Jump up ^ Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
29.Jump up ^ Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
30.Jump up ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation). Abingdon Press.
31.Jump up ^ Sexual desire is, according to bishop of Hippo, only one – though the strongest – of many physical realisations of that spiritual libido: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere assolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, verum etiam intrinsecus vindicat totumque commovet hominem animi simul affectu cum carnis appetitu coniuncto atque permixto, ut ea voluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis voluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius pervenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi vigilia cogitationis obruatur. (De civitate Dei, XIV, 16; CCL 48, 438–439 [1–10]). See also: Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 97.. See also Augustine's: De continentia, 8.21; PL 40, 363; Contra Iulianum VI, 19.60; PL 44, 859; ibid. IV, 14.65, z.2, s. 62; PL 44, 770; De Trinitate, XII, 9. 14; CCL 50, 368 [verse: IX 1–8]; De Genesi contra Manicheos, II, 9.12, s. 60 ; CSEL 91, 133 [v. 31–35]).
32.Jump up ^ Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit. (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II, 40.45; CSEL 42, 202[23–25]; PL 44, 407.
33.Jump up ^ Cf. De civitate Dei, ch. IX and XIV; On the Gospel of John, LX (Christ's feelings at the death of Lazarus, Jn 11)
34.Jump up ^ J. Brachtendorf (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions". p. 307. hdl:2042/23075.
35.Jump up ^ "Infernum", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.
36.Jump up ^ "Limbo: Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died"[1]
37.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 19–21
38.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 22–25
39.Jump up ^ Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4
40.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.
41.Jump up ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
42.^ Jump up to: a b Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, Reformation Europe (Wiley-Blackwell 1999 ISBN 978-0-631-21384-0), p. 136
43.^ Jump up to: a b Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 0-19-929718-5), p. 103
44.^ Jump up to: a b Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
45.^ Jump up to: a b STUDIA HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE May/Mei 2009 Volume XXXV No/Nr 1
46.^ Jump up to: a b Lauren Pristas, The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian
47.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
48.Jump up ^ Edwin Zackrison, In the Loins of Adam (iUniverse 2004 ISBN 9780595307166), p. 73
49.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 9781426721915), vol. 2, p. 58
50.Jump up ^ In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the 'flesh' against the 'spirit' Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2515).
51.Jump up ^ Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.
52.Jump up ^ Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
53.Jump up ^ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
54.Jump up ^ Decree 5 concerning original sin
55.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416–418
56.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357
57.Jump up ^ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Man the Image of God
58.Jump up ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Made in the Image of God"
59.^ Jump up to: a b Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405
60.Jump up ^ What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin
61.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 404
62.Jump up ^ Item 407 in section 1.2.1.7. Emphasis added.
63.Jump up ^ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854) quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491 [2]
64.Jump up ^ Catechism of St. Philaret, questions 157
65.Jump up ^ The term "ancestral sin" is also used, as in Greek προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία (e.g. Πόλεμος και φτώχεια – η ορθόδοξη άποψη, Η νηστεία της Σαρακοστής, Πώς στράφηκε ο Λούθηρος κατά του Μοναχισμού – του Γεωργίου Φλωρόφσκυ) or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα (e.g., Απαντήσεις σε ερωτήματα δογματικά – Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου, εκδ. Αποστολικής Διακονίας, 1997, σελ. 156–161, Θεοτόκος και προπατορικό αμάρτημα)
66.Jump up ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
67.Jump up ^ Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church: Original Sin and Its Consequences
68.Jump up ^ The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 168
69.Jump up ^ Glory to God for all things [3]./
70.Jump up ^ Fr. John Matusiak, http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
71.Jump up ^ Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, "The Festal Menaion", p. 47. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998.
72.Jump up ^ Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body (Euclid University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-61518361-9), p. 410
73.Jump up ^ Articles of Religion - Anglicans Online.
74.Jump up ^ Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64
75.Jump up ^ The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
76.Jump up ^ The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.
77.Jump up ^ http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Woodrow-W.-Whidden---Adventist-Theology---The-Wesleyan-Connection_23617.pdf
78.Jump up ^ E. G. White, Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892
79.^ Jump up to: a b c Gerhard Pfandl. "Some thoughts on Original Sin" (PDF). Biblical Research Institute
80.Jump up ^ Christ's Human Nature
81.Jump up ^ Questions on Doctrines Documents via Andrews University
82.Jump up ^ adventistbiblicalresearch.org
83.^ Jump up to: a b Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145.
84.^ Jump up to: a b What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32.
85.^ Jump up to: a b "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
86.Jump up ^ Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 9780802079732.
87.Jump up ^ "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006.
88.Jump up ^ ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
89.Jump up ^ Adam’s Sin – The Time for True Submission to God – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
90.Jump up ^ Alexander, Thomas G. (1989), Bergera, Gary James, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 55–56.
91.Jump up ^ Id.
92.^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, p. 64.
93.Jump up ^ Articles of Faith 1:2
94.Jump up ^ Merrill, Byron R. (1992). "Original sin". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 1052–1053. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.
95.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 410: [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tQJ9j_1ToC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Arcana+Coelestia+john+f+potts&source=bl&ots=kiaZ2hbwTG&sig=P-jzl0rzPlua-881yeIcjKLo2ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hW0yUKu6A6OSiAKtmoDgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20church%20adam&f=false n. 1101–1150].
96.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 96, n. 313: "But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.".
97.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 229, n.719:"There are evils in man which must be dispersed while he is being regenerated, that is, which must be loosened and attempered by goods; for no actual and hereditary evil in man can be so dispersed as to be abolished. It still remains implanted; and can only be so far loosened and attempered by goods from the Lord that it does not injure, and does not appear, which is an arcanum hitherto unknown. Actual evils are those which are loosened and attempered, and not hereditary evils; which also is a thing unknown.".
98.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 336, n.966: "It is to be observed that in the other life no one undergoes any punishment and torture on account of his hereditary evil, but only on account of the actual evils which he himself has committed.".
99.Jump up ^ Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.
100.Jump up ^ C. Darwin and A. R. Wallace, 1858, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Read at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 by J. J. Bennett, and published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3, (20 August 1858), 46–50.
101.Jump up ^ C. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London.
102.Jump up ^ P J Bowler, 2007, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, Harvard University Press, London; see page 225.
103.Jump up ^ I J J Spangenberg, 2013, "On the origin of death: Paul and Augustine meet Charles Darwin", HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1992, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1992; see page 7.
104.Jump up ^ Langdon Gilkey, Langdon Brown Gilkey. On Niehbuhr (University of Chicago Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-22629342-4), p. 93
105.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer Evolution and Eden (Paulist Press 1998) ISBN 978-0-8091-3815-9
106.Jump up ^ Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-8091-4128-9)
107.Jump up ^ John Redford, What Is Catholicism (Our Sunday Visitor 1999 ISBN 978-0-87973587-6), p. 55
108.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, p. 73
Bibliography[edit]
Brachtendorf, J. (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions" (PDF). Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes) 43: 289–308.
Catechism, U.S. Catholic Church (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church : with modifications from the Editio Typica. (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385508193.
Kelly, J.N.D. (2000). Early Christian doctrines (5th rev. ed.). London: Continuum. ISBN 9780826452528.
ODCC, ed. by Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). "Original sin". The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903.
Swedenborg, Emanuel; Trans. by John F. Potts (1749–56). Arcana Coelestia, Vol. 1 of 8 (2008 Reprint ed.). Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606201077.
Trapè, Agostino (1987). S. Agostino, introduzione alla dottrina della grazia. Collana di Studi Agostiniani 4. I - Natura e Grazia. Roma: Nuova Biblioteca agostiniana. p. 422. ISBN 88-311-3402-7.
Turner, H.E.W. The patristic doctrine of redemption : a study of the development of doctrine during the first five centuries / by H.E.W. Turner. (2004 Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781592449309.
Wallace, A.J.; R. D. Rusk (2010). Moral transformation : the original Christian paradigm of salvation. New Zealand: Bridgehead Publishing. ISBN 9781456389802.
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?—Jonathan Edwards’s Theodicy". Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98–123.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Original sin
Article "Original Sin" in Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Concord The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article II: Of Original Sin; from an early Protestant perspective, part of the Augsburg Confession.
Original Sin According To St. Paul by John S. Romanides
Ancestral Versus Original Sin by Father Antony Hughes, St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Original Sin by Michael Bremmer
CatholicismCouncil of Trent (June 17, 1546). "Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini: Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin". at www.ccel.org. Retrieved 1 November 2013.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology


Adam ·
 Evil ·
 The Fall ·
 Original sin ·
 Christian views on sin ·
 Imputation of sin ·
 Other views on sin ·
 Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism ·
 Theodicy ·
 Total depravity
 

See also Apologetics ·
 Soteriology ·
 Demonology
 

  


Categories: Christian philosophy
Christian hamartiology
Christian theology
Adam and Eve
Christian terminology
Sin








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 10 May 2015, at 15:40.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin









Original sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).


 It has been suggested that ancestral sin be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2015.



 Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens
See also: Fate of the unlearned
Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]
The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also developed the doctrine,[2] seeing it as based on the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22) and the Old Testament verse of Psalm 51:5.[4][5][6][7][8] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that humanity shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation. Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Jansenist movement, which Catholic Church then declared heretical, also maintained that original sin destroyed freedom of will.[9]
Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of what is called "original sin". Some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of humanity,[10] teaching that, in Genesis 8:21 and 6:5-8, God recognized that Adam's sins are his alone. However, Adam is recognized by some as having brought death into the world by his disobedience. Because of his sin, his descendants will live a mortal life, which will end in death of their bodies.[11] The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.[12][13] The concept of inherited sin is also not found in any real form in Islam.[14][15] Some interpretations of original sin are rejected by other Christian theologies.


Contents  [hide]
1 History of the doctrine 1.1 Augustine
1.2 Cassian
1.3 Church reaction
1.4 Protestant reformation
1.5 Council of Trent
2 Denominational views 2.1 Roman Catholicism
2.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.3 Classical Anglicanism
2.4 Methodism
2.5 Seventh-day Adventism
2.6 Jehovah's Witnesses
2.7 Mormonism
2.8 Swedenborgianism
3 Islam
4 Criticism
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links

History of the doctrine[edit]



Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The formalized doctrine of original sin was first developed in the 2nd-century by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[16] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[17]
The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[18][19] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[20][21] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[22][23]
Augustine[edit]



Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[2]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[24] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[25][26] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[27] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[28] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[29] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[30]
Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. Pelagius claimed that the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[31] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[32] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[33][34]
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[35][36] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[37] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[38] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[39] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[40]
Cassian[edit]
In the works of John Cassian (ca. 360 – 435), Conference XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the good thief on the cross as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."[41]
Cassian did not accept the idea of total depravity, on which Martin Luther was to insist.[42] He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Church reaction[edit]
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[47] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] However, while the Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[48] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[49] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[50] in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence.
Protestant reformation[edit]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in Lutheranism's Augsburg Confession presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form:

It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.[51]
Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying:

[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.[52]
Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation. Redemption by Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it – such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings – he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19–21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[53]
Council of Trent[edit]
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[54]
In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2]
Denominational views[edit]



 Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950–955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin
Roman Catholicism[edit]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").[55]
The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[56][57] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[58] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[59] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[60]
The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being a human. The first comprehensive theological explanation of this practice of baptizing infants, guilty of no actual personal sin, was given by Saint Augustine of Hippo, not all of whose ideas on original sin have been adopted by the Catholic Church. Indeed the Church has condemned the interpretation of some of his ideas by certain leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind".[61]
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[59] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. The Catholic Church teaches: "By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free."[62]
The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is that Mary was conceived free from original sin: "the most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin."[63] The doctrine sees her as an exception to the general rule that human beings are not immune from the reality of original sin.
Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[64] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[65] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[66]
Orthodox Churches accept the teachings of John Cassian, as do Catholic Churches eastern and western,[42] in rejecting the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything which pertains to salvation' – even faith."[43] Cassian points out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm Luibhéid says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,[44] while Augustine Casiday says that, in Cassian's view, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not directly caused by God, are totally inadequate and only direct divine intervention ensures spiritual progress.[45] and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace."[46]
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[67] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[68]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[69] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[70]
On whether Mary actually ever sinned, or was stained by original sin, the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church varies, though there is general agreement that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation.[71][72]
Classical Anglicanism[edit]
The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states:

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[73]
However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes:

Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[74]
Methodism[edit]
The Methodist Church upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[75]
Seventh-day Adventism[edit]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that humans are inherently sinful due to the fall of Adam,[76] but they do not totally accept the Augustinian/Calvinistic understanding of original sin, taught in terms of original guilt, but hold more to what could be termed the "total depravity" tradition.[77] Seventh-day Adventists have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt.[78] According to Augustine and Calvin, humanity inherits not only Adam's depraved nature but also the actual guilt of his transgression, and Adventists look more toward the Wesleyan model.[79]
In part, the Adventist position on original sin reads:

The nature of the penalty for original sin, i.e., Adam's sin, is to be seen as literal, physical, temporal, or actual death – the opposite of life, i.e., the cessation of being. By no stretch of the scriptural facts can death be spiritualised as depravity. God did not punish Adam by making him a sinner. That was Adam’s own doing. All die the first death because of Adam’s sin regardless of their moral character – children included.[79]
Early Adventists Pioneers (such as George Storrs and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the morally corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity.[79] Traditionally, Adventists look at sin in terms of willful transgressions, and that Christ triumphed over sin. Adventism believes that Christ is both our Substitute and our Example.[80] They base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)[81]
Though believing in the concept of inherited sin from Adam, there is no dogmatic Adventist position on original sin. Related articles dealing with the subject are publicly available on the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official website on theological doctrine, the Biblical Research Institute.[82]
Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, all humans are born sinners and inherit sin, corruption, and death from Adam. They believe Adam was originally created perfect and sinless, but with free will; the Devil, who was originally a perfect angel, but later developed feelings of pride and self-importance, seduced Eve, and then through her, persuaded Adam to disobey God, and to obey the Devil instead, rebelling against God's sovereignty, making themselves sinners and transmitting a sinful nature to their offspring.[83][84] Instead of destroying the Devil right away, as well as destroying the disobedient couple, God decided to test the loyalty of the rest of humankind, and to prove to that man cannot be independent of God successfully, that man is lost without God's laws and standards, and can never bring peace to the earth, and that Satan was a deceiver, murderer, and liar.[85]
Witnesses believe that all men possess "inherited sin" from the "one man" Adam, and that man is born corrupt, and dies because of inherited sin and imperfection, that inherited sin is the reason and cause for sickness and suffering, made worse by the Devil's wicked influence. They believe Jesus is the "second Adam", being the sinless Son of God and the Messiah, and that he came to undo Adamic sin; and that salvation and everlasting life can only be obtained through faith and obedience to the second Adam.[83][84][85][86][87][88] They believe that "sin" is "missing the mark" of God's standard of perfection, and that everyone is born a sinner, due to being the offspring of sinner Adam.[89]
Mormonism[edit]
The Book of Mormon, a text sacred to Mormonism, contains an original sin doctrine in which humanity inherited a fallen and depraved nature from Adam.[90] Young children, however, are thought to be held innocent until an age of accountability.[91] As Mormon doctrines developed, founder Joseph Smith ultimately taught that humans had an essentially godlike nature, and were not only holy in a premortal state, but could progress eternally to become like God.[92] He wrote as an Article of Faith, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."[93] Later Mormons took this creed as a rejection of the doctrine of original sin and any notion of inherited sinfulness.[92] Thus, while modern Mormons will agree that the fall of Adam brought consequences to the world, including the possibility of sin, they generally reject the idea that any culpability is automatically transmitted to Adam and Eve's offspring.[94]
Swedenborgianism[edit]
In Swedenborgianism, exegesis of the first 11 chapters of Genesis from The First Church, has a view that Adam is not an individual person. Rather, he is a symbolic representation of the "Most Ancient Church", having a more direct contact with heaven than all other successive churches.[95] Swedenborg's view of original sin is referred to as hereditary evil, which passes from generation to generation.[96] It cannot be completely abolished by an individual man, but can be tempered when someone reforms their own life,[97] and are thus held accountable only for their own sins.[98]
Islam[edit]
The concept of original sin is not recognized in Islam. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven by God, and use the following Koranic suras to support this belief:
"O Adam, dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?'" Sūrat al-Aʻrāf:19–22.
"They said: 'Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves souls. If You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your mercy, we shall certainly be of the losers' " Surat al-Aʻraf :23
".. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance." Surat Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122
"(God) said: 'Get down (from the Garden), one of you an enemy to the other [i.e. Adam, Eve, and Satan]. On earth will be a dwelling-place for you and an enjoyment – for a short time'. He (God) said: 'Therein you shall live, and therein you shall die, and from it you shall be brought out [i.e. resurrected].' " Surat al-Aʻraf:24–25.
"That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense." Surat an-Najm:38–41
Criticism[edit]
Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin, that was accepted by the Church, was based on a mis-translation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin".[99]
In an 8-page contribution, I.J.J. Spangenberg has stated:

Darwin,[100][101] did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustine's convictions on "original sin" and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this (Bowler 2007:225).[102] Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.[103]
That what Spangenberg calls "traditional theology" is not the only accepted contemporary theology is evident from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr[104] and others reviewed in Jerry D. Korsmeyer's Evolution and Eden[105] and Tatha Wiley's Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings,[106] and from the fact that, with regard to official Catholic Church doctrine on original sin, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church "explicitly acknowledges that the account of the fall in Genesis 2 and 3 uses figurative language".[107] Difficulty for what Spangenberg calls the dialogue between religion and science arises, in the view of Korsmeyer, from a confrontation between a few popularizers of scientific knowledge and "religious fundamentalists who consider that their religious knowledge includes scientific conclusions drawn from the Bible".[108]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Christianity portal
Portal icon Religion portal
Actual sin
Ancestral sin
Christian views on sin
Deadly sin
Divine grace
Eternal sin (aka unforgivable or unpardonable sin)
Fall of man
Hamartiology
Immaculate Conception
Incurvatus in se
Internal sin
Justification (theology)
Mortal sin
Pandora's box
Prevenient grace
Sin
The Antichrist (book)
Theodicy and the Bible#The Fall and freedom of the will
Total depravity
Venial sin
Problem of evil
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Examples: Alexander Golitzin, On the Mystical Life by Saint Symeon (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-88141-144-7), p.119
Adam L. Tate, Conservatism and Southern Intellectuals, 1789–1861 (University of Missouri Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-8262-1567-3), p. 190
Marcelle Bartolo-Abel, God's Gift to Humanity (Apostolate–The Divine Heart 2011 ISBN 978-0-9833480-1-6), p. 32
Ann Hassan, Annotations to Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (Punctum Books 2012 ISBN 978-1-4681-2984-7, p. 62
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ODCC 2005, p. Original sin.
3.Jump up ^ Brodd, Jefferey (2003). World Religions. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press. ISBN 978-0-88489-725-5.
4.Jump up ^ Peter Nathan - The Original View of Original Sin - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
5.Jump up ^ Phil Porvaznik - Original Sin Explained and Defended Evangelical Catholic Apologetics - Retrieved 14 October 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Preamble and Articles of Faith - V. Sin, Original and Personal - Church of the Nazarene. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
7.Jump up ^ Are Babies Born with Sin? - Topical Bible Studies. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
8.Jump up ^ Original Sin - Psalm 51:5 - Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
9.Jump up ^ "Jansenius and Jansenism" in The Catholic Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ SIN: – Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12 July 2013.
11.Jump up ^ Shaul Magid (2008). From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Indiana University Press. p. 238. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
12.Jump up ^ Judaism’s Rejection Of Original Sin – Kolatch, Alfred J., The Jewish Book of Why/The Second Jewish Book of Why. NY: Jonathan David Publishers, 1989.
13.Jump up ^ Judaism's Rejection Of Original Sin While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
14.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm/
15.Jump up ^ http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/human.htm
16.Jump up ^ J. N. D. Kelly Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) p. 171, referred to in Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church, p. 433
17.Jump up ^ Daniel L. Akin, A Theology for the Church (B&H Publishing 2007 ISBN 978-0-8054-2640-3), p. 433
18.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 255 & 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
19.Jump up ^ H. E. W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of the Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine During the First Five Centuries (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004) p. 71
20.Jump up ^ Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 104
21.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), p. 258. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
22.Jump up ^ Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1, Early and Eastern (New York; London: C. Scribner's sons, 1932), p. 101
23.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 258–259. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
24.Jump up ^ Augustine taught that Adam's sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth. Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Sed si disputatione subtilissima et elimatissima opus est, ut sciamus utrum primos homines insipientia superbos, an insipientes superbia fecerit (Contra Julianum, V, 4.18; PL 44, 795). This particular sin would not have taken place if Satan had not sown into their senses "the root of evil" (radix Mali): Nisi radicem mali humanus tunc reciperet sensus (Contra Julianum, I, 9.42; PL 44, 670)
25.Jump up ^ ORIGINAL SIN- Biblical Apologetic Studies - Retrieved 17 May 2014. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", sexual desire and all sensual feelings resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.
26.Jump up ^ William Nicholson - A Plain But Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England... (Google eBook) page 118. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
27.Jump up ^ Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that the libido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not a libido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, but libido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature: Libido quae transmittit peccatum originale in prolem, non est libido actualis, quia dato quod virtute divina concederetur alicui quod nullam inordinatam libidinem in actu generationis sentiret, adhuc transmitteret in prolem originale peccatum. Sed libido illa est intelligenda habitualiter, secundum quod appetitus sensitivus non continetur sub ratione vinculo originalis iustitiae. Et talis libido in omnibus est aequalis (STh Iª–IIae q. 82 a. 4 ad 3).
28.Jump up ^ Non substantialiter manere concupiscentiam, sicut corpus aliquod aut spiritum; sed esse affectionem quamdam malae qualitatis, sicut est languor. (De nuptiis et concupiscentia, I, 25. 28; PL 44, 430; cf. Contra Julianum, VI, 18.53; PL 44, 854; ibid. VI, 19.58; PL 44, 857; ibid., II, 10.33; PL 44, 697; Contra Secundinum Manichaeum, 15; PL 42, 590.
29.Jump up ^ Augustine wrote to Julian of Eclanum: Quis enim negat futurum fuisse concubitum, etiamsi peccatum non praecessisset? Sed futurus fuerat, sicut aliis membris, ita etiam genitalibus voluntate motis, non libidine concitatis; aut certe etiam ipsa libidine – ut non vos de illa nimium contristemus – non qualis nunc est, sed ad nutum voluntarium serviente (Contra Julianum, IV. 11. 57; PL 44, 766). See also his late work: Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem imperfectum opus, II, 42; PL 45,1160; ibid. II, 45; PL 45,1161; ibid., VI, 22; PL 45, 1550–1551. Cf.Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 104.
30.Jump up ^ Justo L. Gonzalez (1970–1975). A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 (From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation). Abingdon Press.
31.Jump up ^ Sexual desire is, according to bishop of Hippo, only one – though the strongest – of many physical realisations of that spiritual libido: Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere assolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, verum etiam intrinsecus vindicat totumque commovet hominem animi simul affectu cum carnis appetitu coniuncto atque permixto, ut ea voluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis voluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius pervenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi vigilia cogitationis obruatur. (De civitate Dei, XIV, 16; CCL 48, 438–439 [1–10]). See also: Schmitt, É. (1983). Le mariage chrétien dans l'oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Une théologie baptismale de la vie conjugale. Études Augustiniennes. Paris. p. 97.. See also Augustine's: De continentia, 8.21; PL 40, 363; Contra Iulianum VI, 19.60; PL 44, 859; ibid. IV, 14.65, z.2, s. 62; PL 44, 770; De Trinitate, XII, 9. 14; CCL 50, 368 [verse: IX 1–8]; De Genesi contra Manicheos, II, 9.12, s. 60 ; CSEL 91, 133 [v. 31–35]).
32.Jump up ^ Regeneratus quippe non regenerat filios carnis, sed generat; ac per hoc in eos non quod regeneratus, sed quod generatus est, trajicit. (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, II, 40.45; CSEL 42, 202[23–25]; PL 44, 407.
33.Jump up ^ Cf. De civitate Dei, ch. IX and XIV; On the Gospel of John, LX (Christ's feelings at the death of Lazarus, Jn 11)
34.Jump up ^ J. Brachtendorf (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions". p. 307. hdl:2042/23075.
35.Jump up ^ "Infernum", literally "underworld," later identified as limbo.
36.Jump up ^ "Limbo: Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died"[1]
37.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 19–21
38.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, 22–25
39.Jump up ^ Mark 10:14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4
40.Jump up ^ Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.
41.Jump up ^ Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11
42.^ Jump up to: a b Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, Reformation Europe (Wiley-Blackwell 1999 ISBN 978-0-631-21384-0), p. 136
43.^ Jump up to: a b Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in St John Cassian (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 0-19-929718-5), p. 103
44.^ Jump up to: a b Conferences By John Cassian, Colm Luibhéid
45.^ Jump up to: a b STUDIA HISTORIAE ECCLESIASTICAE May/Mei 2009 Volume XXXV No/Nr 1
46.^ Jump up to: a b Lauren Pristas, The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian
47.Jump up ^ A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011), pp. 284–285. ISBN 978-1-4563-8980-2
48.Jump up ^ Edwin Zackrison, In the Loins of Adam (iUniverse 2004 ISBN 9780595307166), p. 73
49.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 9781426721915), vol. 2, p. 58
50.Jump up ^ In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the 'flesh' against the 'spirit' Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2515).
51.Jump up ^ Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.
52.Jump up ^ Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
53.Jump up ^ John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
54.Jump up ^ Decree 5 concerning original sin
55.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416–418
56.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357
57.Jump up ^ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Man the Image of God
58.Jump up ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Made in the Image of God"
59.^ Jump up to: a b Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405
60.Jump up ^ What the Catholic Church Teaches about Original Sin
61.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 404
62.Jump up ^ Item 407 in section 1.2.1.7. Emphasis added.
63.Jump up ^ Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854) quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 491 [2]
64.Jump up ^ Catechism of St. Philaret, questions 157
65.Jump up ^ The term "ancestral sin" is also used, as in Greek προπατορικὴ ἁμαρτία (e.g. Πόλεμος και φτώχεια – η ορθόδοξη άποψη, Η νηστεία της Σαρακοστής, Πώς στράφηκε ο Λούθηρος κατά του Μοναχισμού – του Γεωργίου Φλωρόφσκυ) or προπατορικὸ ἁμάρτημα (e.g., Απαντήσεις σε ερωτήματα δογματικά – Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου, εκδ. Αποστολικής Διακονίας, 1997, σελ. 156–161, Θεοτόκος και προπατορικό αμάρτημα)
66.Jump up ^ stmaryorthodoxchurch.org
67.Jump up ^ Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church: Original Sin and Its Consequences
68.Jump up ^ The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 168
69.Jump up ^ Glory to God for all things [3]./
70.Jump up ^ Fr. John Matusiak, http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3
71.Jump up ^ Mother Mary and Ware, Kallistos, "The Festal Menaion", p. 47. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998.
72.Jump up ^ Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body (Euclid University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-61518361-9), p. 410
73.Jump up ^ Articles of Religion - Anglicans Online.
74.Jump up ^ Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64
75.Jump up ^ The United Methodist Church: The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church – Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
76.Jump up ^ The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.
77.Jump up ^ http://www.bibelschule.info/streaming/Woodrow-W.-Whidden---Adventist-Theology---The-Wesleyan-Connection_23617.pdf
78.Jump up ^ E. G. White, Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892
79.^ Jump up to: a b c Gerhard Pfandl. "Some thoughts on Original Sin" (PDF). Biblical Research Institute
80.Jump up ^ Christ's Human Nature
81.Jump up ^ Questions on Doctrines Documents via Andrews University
82.Jump up ^ adventistbiblicalresearch.org
83.^ Jump up to: a b Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145.
84.^ Jump up to: a b What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32.
85.^ Jump up to: a b "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
86.Jump up ^ Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 9780802079732.
87.Jump up ^ "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006.
88.Jump up ^ ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
89.Jump up ^ Adam’s Sin – The Time for True Submission to God – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013.
90.Jump up ^ Alexander, Thomas G. (1989), Bergera, Gary James, ed., Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Signature Books, pp. 55–56.
91.Jump up ^ Id.
92.^ Jump up to: a b Alexander, p. 64.
93.Jump up ^ Articles of Faith 1:2
94.Jump up ^ Merrill, Byron R. (1992). "Original sin". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 1052–1053. ISBN 0-02-879602-0. OCLC 24502140.
95.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 410: [url=http://books.google.com/books?id=U3tQJ9j_1ToC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Arcana+Coelestia+john+f+potts&source=bl&ots=kiaZ2hbwTG&sig=P-jzl0rzPlua-881yeIcjKLo2ZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hW0yUKu6A6OSiAKtmoDgAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ancient%20church%20adam&f=false n. 1101–1150].
96.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749–56, p. 96, n. 313: "But as to hereditary evil, the case is this. Everyone who commits actual sin thereby induces on himself a nature, and the evil from it is implanted in his children, and becomes hereditary. It thus descends from every parent, from the father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and their ancestors in succession, and is thus multiplied and augmented in each descending posterity, remaining with each person, and being increased in each by his actual sins, and never being dissipated so as to become harmless except in those who are being regenerated by the Lord. Every attentive observer may see evidence of this truth in the fact that the evil inclinations of parents remain visibly in their children, so that one family, and even an entire race, may be thereby distinguished from every other.".
97.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 229, n.719:"There are evils in man which must be dispersed while he is being regenerated, that is, which must be loosened and attempered by goods; for no actual and hereditary evil in man can be so dispersed as to be abolished. It still remains implanted; and can only be so far loosened and attempered by goods from the Lord that it does not injure, and does not appear, which is an arcanum hitherto unknown. Actual evils are those which are loosened and attempered, and not hereditary evils; which also is a thing unknown.".
98.Jump up ^ Swedenborg 1749-56, p. 336, n.966: "It is to be observed that in the other life no one undergoes any punishment and torture on account of his hereditary evil, but only on account of the actual evils which he himself has committed.".
99.Jump up ^ Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.
100.Jump up ^ C. Darwin and A. R. Wallace, 1858, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection", Read at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858 by J. J. Bennett, and published in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3, (20 August 1858), 46–50.
101.Jump up ^ C. Darwin, 1859, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, published by John Murray, London.
102.Jump up ^ P J Bowler, 2007, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design, Harvard University Press, London; see page 225.
103.Jump up ^ I J J Spangenberg, 2013, "On the origin of death: Paul and Augustine meet Charles Darwin", HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69(1), Art. #1992, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ hts.v69i1.1992; see page 7.
104.Jump up ^ Langdon Gilkey, Langdon Brown Gilkey. On Niehbuhr (University of Chicago Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-22629342-4), p. 93
105.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer Evolution and Eden (Paulist Press 1998) ISBN 978-0-8091-3815-9
106.Jump up ^ Tatha Wiley, Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings (Paulist Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-8091-4128-9)
107.Jump up ^ John Redford, What Is Catholicism (Our Sunday Visitor 1999 ISBN 978-0-87973587-6), p. 55
108.Jump up ^ Jerry D. Korsmeyer, Evolution and Eden, p. 73
Bibliography[edit]
Brachtendorf, J. (1997). "Cicero and Augustine on the Passions" (PDF). Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes) 43: 289–308.
Catechism, U.S. Catholic Church (2003). Catechism of the Catholic Church : with modifications from the Editio Typica. (2nd ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN 9780385508193.
Kelly, J.N.D. (2000). Early Christian doctrines (5th rev. ed.). London: Continuum. ISBN 9780826452528.
ODCC, ed. by Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). "Original sin". The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903.
Swedenborg, Emanuel; Trans. by John F. Potts (1749–56). Arcana Coelestia, Vol. 1 of 8 (2008 Reprint ed.). Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606201077.
Trapè, Agostino (1987). S. Agostino, introduzione alla dottrina della grazia. Collana di Studi Agostiniani 4. I - Natura e Grazia. Roma: Nuova Biblioteca agostiniana. p. 422. ISBN 88-311-3402-7.
Turner, H.E.W. The patristic doctrine of redemption : a study of the development of doctrine during the first five centuries / by H.E.W. Turner. (2004 Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781592449309.
Wallace, A.J.; R. D. Rusk (2010). Moral transformation : the original Christian paradigm of salvation. New Zealand: Bridgehead Publishing. ISBN 9781456389802.
Woo, B. Hoon (2014). "Is God the Author of Sin?—Jonathan Edwards’s Theodicy". Puritan Reformed Journal 6 (1): 98–123.
External links[edit]
 Wikiquote has quotations related to: Original sin
Article "Original Sin" in Catholic Encyclopedia
The Book of Concord The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article II: Of Original Sin; from an early Protestant perspective, part of the Augsburg Confession.
Original Sin According To St. Paul by John S. Romanides
Ancestral Versus Original Sin by Father Antony Hughes, St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Original Sin by Michael Bremmer
CatholicismCouncil of Trent (June 17, 1546). "Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini: Fifth Session, Decree concerning Original Sin". at www.ccel.org. Retrieved 1 November 2013.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hamartiology


Adam ·
 Evil ·
 The Fall ·
 Original sin ·
 Christian views on sin ·
 Imputation of sin ·
 Other views on sin ·
 Supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism ·
 Theodicy ·
 Total depravity
 

See also Apologetics ·
 Soteriology ·
 Demonology
 

  


Categories: Christian philosophy
Christian hamartiology
Christian theology
Adam and Eve
Christian terminology
Sin








Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Latviešu
Magyar
മലയാളം
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Tagalog
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 10 May 2015, at 15:40.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin








Annihilationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism[1]) is a Christian belief that apart from salvation the final punishment of human beings results in their total destruction rather than their everlasting torment. It is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists) believe God's love is scripturally described as an all-consuming fire[2] and that sinful creatures cannot exist in God's presence. Thus those who elect to reject salvation through their free will are eternally destroyed because of the inherent incompatibility of sin with God's holy character. Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses posit that hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin. It stands in contrast to the traditional and long standing belief in eternal torture in the lake of fire, and the belief that everyone will be saved (universal reconciliation or simply "universalism").
The belief is in the minority, although it has appeared throughout Christian history.[3] Since 1800 the alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians.[4]
It experienced a resurgence in the 1980s when several prominent theologians including John Stott[5] were prepared to argue that it could be held sincerely as a legitimate interpretation of biblical texts (alternative to the more traditional interpretation of them), by those who give supreme authority to scripture. Earlier in the 20th century, some theologians at the University of Cambridge including Basil Atkinson supported the belief. 20th-century English theologians who favor annihilation include Bishop Charles Gore (1916),[6] William Temple, 98th Archbishop of Canterbury (1924);[7] Oliver Chase Quick, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury (1933),[8] Ulrich Ernst Simon (1964),[9] and G. B. Caird (1966).[10]
Some Christian denominations which are annihilationist were influenced by the Millerite/Adventist movement of the mid-19th century. These include the Seventh-day Adventists, Bible Students, Christadelphians and the various Advent Christian churches. Additionally, the Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in 1995 that "[h]ell is not eternal torment", but "non-being". Some Protestant and Anglican writers have also proposed annihilationist doctrines.
Annihilationists base the doctrine on their exegesis of scripture, some early church writing, historical criticism of the doctrine of hell, and the concept of God as too loving to torment his creations forever. They claim that the popular conceptions of hell stem from Jewish speculation during the intertestamental period,[11] belief in an immortal soul which originated in Greek philosophy and influenced Christian theologians, and also graphic and imaginative medieval art and poetry. Contrasting beliefs include universal reconciliation, where all souls are seen as immortal and eventually receive salvation, and special salvation, where a positive afterlife is exclusively held by just some souls.


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Bible references
1.2 Church fathers and later
1.3 Anglicanism
1.4 Millerite and Adventist movement 1.4.1 Seventh-day Adventist Church
1.4.2 Church of God (7th day) – Salem Conference
1.4.3 Others
1.5 1900s onwards
1.6 Conditional immortality
2 Justifications 2.1 Literal interpretation of scripture
2.2 Cited texts
2.3 Opposing texts
2.4 Incompatibility with God's love
2.5 Hellenic origins
3 People 3.1 Advocates
3.2 Agnostics
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

History[edit]
Bible references[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010)
Proponents of annihilationism cite Old Testament texts such as Ezekiel 18:4 saying that "the soul that sins shall die", and New Testament texts including Matthew 10:28 where Christ speaks of the wicked being destroyed "both body and soul" in fiery hell, John 11:11 "our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep", and 1 Thessalonians 4:15 "we shall not precede those who have fallen asleep". Annihilationists believe that mankind is mortal, and the soul is in a dormant state having no concept of the passing of time when the body dies. Annihilationists furthermore believe that the dead in Christ are awaiting the resurrection of the dead mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. The ancient Hebrews, according to some modern scholars, had no concept of the eternal soul. The afterlife was simply Sheol, the abode of the dead, a bleak end to existence akin to the Greek Hades.
Those who oppose annihilationism generally refer to the New Testament, especially the story of Rich man and Lazarus. By the time of Christ, the Jews largely believed in a future resurrection of the dead.[12] Some annihilationists take these references to portray the temporary suffering of those who will be destroyed.[citation needed] The parable shows the rich man suffering in the fiery part of Hades (en to hade), where however he could see Abraham and Lazarus and converse with Abraham. Although, the parable of Lazarus could also be interpreted in the sense that it states "being in hades he lifted up his eyes", meaning that the Rich Man was in hades and was then resurrected ("lifted up his eyes"), therefore stating that at the time of the torment described and conversing with Abraham, he was no-longer in hades, but facing the lake of fire.[citation needed]
Church fathers and later[edit]
A majority of Christian writers, from Tertullian to Luther, have held to traditional notions of hell, especially Latin writers. However, the annihilationist position is not without some historical warrant. Early forms of conditional immortality can be found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch[13] (d. 108), Justin Martyr[14] (d. 165), and Irenaeus[15] (d. 202). However, the teachings of Arnobius (d. 330) are often interpreted as the first to defend annihilationism explicitly. One quote in particular stands out in Arnobius' second book of Against the Heathen:

Your interests are in jeopardy,-the salvation, I mean, of your souls; and unless you give yourselves to seek to know the Supreme God, a cruel death awaits you when freed from the bonds of body, not bringing sudden annihilation, but destroying by the bitterness of its grievous and long-protracted punishment.[16]
Eternal hell/torment has been "the semiofficial position of the church since approximately the sixth century", according to Pinnock.[17]
Additionally, at least one of John Wesley's recorded sermons are often reluctantly understood as implying annihilationism. Contrarily, the denominations of Methodism which arose through his influence typically do not agree with annihilationism.[18]
Anglicanism[edit]
Although the Church of England has through most of its history been closer to John Calvin's doctrine of conscious continuation of the immortal soul, rather than Martin Luther's "soul sleep," the doctrine of annihilation of the "wicked" following a judgment day at a literal return of Christ has had a following in the Anglican communion. In 1945 a report by the Archbishops' Commission on Evangelism, Towards the conversion of England, caused controversy with statements including that "Judgment is the ultimate separation of the evil from the good, with the consequent destruction of all that opposes itself to God's will."[19]
Millerite and Adventist movement[edit]
Recently the doctrine has been most often associated with groups descended from or with influences from the Millerite movement of the mid-19th century. These include the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Church of God (7th day) - Salem Conference, the Bible Students, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the followers of Herbert Armstrong, and the various Advent Christian churches. (The Millerite movement consisted of 50,000 to 100,000 people in the United States who eagerly expected the soon return of Jesus, and originated around William Miller).
George Storrs introduced the belief to the Millerites. He had been a Methodist minister and antislavery advocate. He was introduced to annihilationism when in 1837 he read a pamphlet by Henry Grew. He published tracts in 1841 and 1842 arguing for conditionalism and annihilation.[20] He became a Millerite, and started the Bible Examiner in 1843 to promote these doctrines.[21] However most leaders of the movement rejected these beliefs, other than Charles Fitch who accepted conditionalism.[22] Still, in 1844 the movement officially decided these issues were not essential points of belief.[23]
The Millerites expected Jesus to return around 1843 or 1844, based on Bible texts including Daniel 8:14, and one Hebrew Calendar. When the most expected date of Jesus' return (October 22, 1844) passed uneventfully, the "Great Disappointment" resulted. Followers met in 1845 to discuss the future direction of the movement, and were henceforth known as "Adventists". However they split on the issues of conditionalism and annihilation. The dominant group, which published the Advent Herald, adopted the traditional position of the immortal soul, and became the American Evangelical Adventist Conference. On the other hand, groups behind the Bible Advocate and Second Advent Watchman adopted conditionalism. Later, the main advocate of conditionalism became the World's Crisis publication, which started in the early 1850s, and played a key part in the origin of the Advent Christian Church. Storrs came to believe the wicked would never be resurrected. He and like-minded others formed the Life and Advent Union in 1863.[23]
Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]
The Seventh-day Adventist Church formed from a small group of Millerite Adventists who kept the Saturday Sabbath, and today forms the most prominent "Adventist" group.
Ellen G. White rejected the immortal soul concept in 1843. Her husband James White, along with Joseph Bates, formerly belonged to the conditionalist Christian Connection, and hinted at this belief in early publications. Together, the three constitute the primary founders of the church.
Articles appeared in the primary magazine of the movement in the 1850s, and two books were published.[24] Annihilationism was apparently established in the sect by the middle of that decade.[23] (In the 1860s, the group adopted the name "Seventh-day Adventist" and organized more formally.) D. M. Canright and Uriah Smith produced later books.[23][25][26]
A publication with noticeable impact in the wider Christian world was The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers (2 vols, 1965–1966) by Le Roy Froom.[27] It has been described as "a classic defense of conditionalism" by Clark Pinnock.[28][29] It is a lengthy historical work, documenting the supporters throughout history.
Robert Brinsmead, an Australian and former Seventh-day Adventist best known for his Present Truth Magazine, originally sponsored Edward Fudge to write The Fire that Consumes.[30]
Samuele Bacchiocchi, best known for his study From Sabbath to Sunday, has defended annihilation.[31] Pinnock wrote the foreword.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church's official beliefs support annihilation.[32]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the wicked will be punished in the lake of fire, before ultimately being destroyed. Their reading of biblical texts that are used in support of the traditional doctrine of hell is that these texts can be harmonized with this particular annihilationist understanding of hell. They see the verses in scripture such as (cf. John 3:16), which says, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, as part of many verses that show the wicked shall perish. The Seventh-day Adventists believe that these biblical texts refer to the destructive forces that are employed and the results of this punishment as being eternal, and not that the wicked specifically experience conscious torment throughout eternity.[33]
Church of God (7th day) – Salem Conference[edit]
According to the Church of God (7th day) – Salem Conference, the dead are unconscious in their graves and immortality is conditional. when God formed Adam, out of the dust of the ground, and before Adam could live, God breathed the breath of life into his body: "And man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). See also Ezekiel 18:4, 20. Psalm 146:4 says, "His (man's) breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth (dust); in that very day his thoughts perish." No man has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ (John 3:13).[34]
Others[edit]
Other supporters have included Charles Frederic Hudson (1860), Edward White (1878), Emmanuel Petavel-Olliff (1836–1910, in 1889) and others.[35]
1900s onwards[edit]
Annihilationism seems to be gaining as a legitimate minority opinion within modern, conservative Protestant theology since the 1960s, and particularly since the 1980s. It has found support and acceptance among some British evangelicals, although viewed with greater suspicion by their American counterparts. Recently, a handful of evangelical theologians, including the prominent evangelical Anglican author John Stott, have offered at least tentative support for the doctrine, touching off a heated debate within mainstream evangelical Christianity.[36]
The subject really gained attention in the late 1980s, from publications by two evangelical Anglicans, John Stott and Philip Hughes.[37] Stott advocated annihilationism in the 1988 book Essentials: A Liberal–Evangelical Dialogue with liberal David Edwards, the first time he publicly did so.[38] However 5 years later he said that he had been an annihilationist for around fifty years.[39] Stott wrote, "Well, emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain."[40] Yet he considers emotions unreliable, and affords supreme authority to the Bible.[41] Stott supports annihilation, yet cautions, "I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively... I believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment."[42] Philip Hughes published The True Image in 1989, which has been called "[o]ne of the most significant books" in the debate.[30] A portion deals with this issue in particular.[43]
John Wenham's 1974 book The Goodness of God contained a chapter which challenged the traditional church doctrine, and was the first book from an evangelical publishing house to do so.[30][44] It was republished later as The Enigma of Evil.[45] He contributed a chapter on conditionalism in the 1992 book Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell.[46] He later published Facing Hell: An Autobiography 1913–1996, which explores the doctrine through an autobiographical approach.[47] His interest in the topic stemmed from the 1930s as a student at the University of Cambridge, where he was influenced by Basil Atkinson. (Wenham is best known for his The Elements of New Testament Greek, which has been a standard textbook for students). He wrote:
"I feel that the time has come when I must declare my mind honestly. I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away. Most of all I should rejoice to see a number of theologians ... joining ... in researching this great topic with all its ramifications."[48]
The Fire that Consumes was published in 1982 by Edward Fudge of the Churches of Christ.[49] It was described as "the best book" by Clark Pinnock, as of a decade later.[50] John Gerstner called it "the ablest critique of hell by a believer in the inspiration of the Bible."[51] Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College has defended annihilation.[52] Earlier, Atkinson had self-published the book Life and Immortality.[53] Theologians from Cambridge have been influential in supporting the annihilationist position, particularly Atkinson.[54]
Annihilationism is also the belief of some liberal Christians within mainstream denominations.
There have been individual supporters earlier. Pentecostal healing evangelist William Branham promoted annihilationism in the last few years before his death in 1965.[55]
The Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in February 1995 that Hell is not eternal torment. The report, entitled "The Mystery of Salvation" states, "Christians have professed appalling theologies which made God into a sadistic monster. ... Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being."[56] The British Evangelical Alliance ACUTE report (published in 2000) states the doctrine is a "significant minority evangelical view" that has "grown within evangelicalism in recent years".[57] A 2011 study of British evangelicals showed 19% disagreed a little or a lot with eternal conscious torment, and 31% were unsure.[58]
Several evangelical reactions to annihilationism were published.[59] Another critique was by Paul Helm in 1989.[60] In 1990, J. I. Packer delivered several lectures supporting the traditional doctrine of eternal torture. The reluctance of many evangelicals is illustrated by the fact that proponents of annihilationism have had trouble publishing their doctrines with evangelical publishing houses, with Wenham's 1973 book being the first.[30][37]
Some well respected authors have remained neutral. F. F. Bruce wrote, "annihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passages ... For myself, I remain agnostic. Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the revealed character of God."[61] Comparatively, C. S. Lewis did not systematize his own beliefs.[62] He rejected traditional pictures of the "tortures" of hell, as in The Great Divorce where he pictured it as a drab "grey town". Yet in The Problem of Pain, "Lewis sounds much like an annihilationist."[63] He wrote:
"But I notice that Our Lord, while stressing the terror of hell with unsparing severity usually emphasises the idea not of duration but of finality. Consignment to the destroying fire is usually treated as the end of the story—not as the beginning of a new story. That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannot doubt: but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration—or duration at all—we cannot say."[64]
The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (1992) describes hell as 'eternal death' (para 1861) and elsewhere states that 'the chief punishment of hell is that of eternal separation from God' (para 1035). What does 'eternal' mean in this context? St Thomas Aquinas, following Boethius, states that 'eternity is the full, perfect and simultaneous possession of unending life' (Summa Theologica I, question 10), so apparently eternal separation from God is a 'negative eternity', a complete and permanent separation from God. In the Collect (opening prayer) for the eighth Sunday after Pentecost in the Tridentine missal, we find the words 'qui sine te esse non possumus', meaning 'we who without Thee cannot be (or exist)'. Putting these two citations together in a literal sense would seem to suggest annihilationism, which, however, is contrary to Catholic teaching.
It is interesting to note that the Collect mentioned above found its way into the Anglican prayer-book, as the collect for the ninth Sunday after Trinity, but mistranslated so that it reads 'we who cannot do anything that is good without Thee'. Perhaps the Anglican translators (in the 16th century) feared that a correct translation of the Latin text might undermine the doctrine of everlasting torment in hell. In the modern ordinary form of the Mass of the Catholic Church, in the collect is included again, used on Thursday in the first week of Lent.[65]
Conditional immortality[edit]
Main article: Christian conditionalism
The doctrine is often, although not always, bound up with the notion of "conditional immortality", a belief that the soul is not innately immortal. They are related yet distinct.[66] At death, both the wicked and righteous will pass into non-existence, only to be resurrected at the final judgment. God, who alone is immortal, passes on the gift of immortality to the righteous, who will live forever in heaven or on an idyllic earth or World to Come, while the wicked will ultimately face a second death.[Rev 2:11][20:6][20:14][21:8]
Those who describe and/or those who believe in this doctrine may not use "annihilationist" to define the belief, and the terms "mortalist" and "conditionalist" are often used. Edward Fudge (1982)[67] uses "annihilationist" to refer to the both "mortalists" and "conditionalists" who believe in a universal resurrection, as well as those groups which hold that not all the wicked will rise to face the New Testament's "resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust".
Justifications[edit]
Literal interpretation of scripture[edit]
Some annihilationists ask the question: why would God choose the words like "destroy, destruction, perish, death" to signify something other than their plain meaning? While this does not require denial of the existence of hell, the suffering of the souls that inhabit it is terminated by their destruction. Adventists, and perhaps others, then understand the term "hell" to refer to the process of destruction, not a permanently existing process.
Psalm 1:6 ... but the way of the ungodly shall perish
Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish... they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
Psalm 92:7 ... shall be destroyed forever
Matthew 10:28b Rather, fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
John 3:16 ... whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Greek: destroyed) ...
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death …
Philippians 3:19 whose end is "destruction" ...
2 Thessalonians 1:9 who shall be punished with everlasting destruction ...
Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition (Greek: destruction); but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
James 4:12a There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.
Revelation 20:14 This is the second death...
Annihilationists understand there will be suffering in the death process, but ultimately the wages of sin is death, not eternal existence. Many affirm that Jesus taught limited conscious physical sufferings upon the guilty:
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. (Luke 12:47–48)
The adjectives "many" and "few" in Luke 12 could not be used if eternal conscious torment was what Jesus was teaching. He would have used "heavier" and "lighter" if the duration of conscious sufferings were eternal because when the "few" stripes were over there could be no more suffering. By very definition "few" and "many" declare not unlimited (or eternal) sufferings.
Annihilationists declare eternal existence and life is a gift gotten only from believing the gospel; (John 3:16) Paul calls this gift (immortality) an integral part of the gospel message. "...who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and 'immortality' to light through the gospel." (2 Timothy 1:10). If all souls are born immortal, then why is humanity encouraged to seek it by Paul? "To them who by patient continuance in well doing 'seek' for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:" (Romans 2:7) And also, why would Jesus offer humanity an opportunity to "live forever", if all live forever? …"if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever:" (John 6:51).
Annihilationism is based on passages that speak of the unsaved as perishing (John 3:16) or being destroyed (Matthew 10:28). Annihilationists believe that verses speaking of the second death refer to ceasing to exist. Opponents of annihilationism argue that the second death is the spiritual death (separation from God) that occurs after physical death (separation of soul and body). Annihilationists are quick to point out that spiritual death happens the moment one sins and that it is illogical to believe further separation from God can take place. In addition, annihilationists claim that complete separation from God conflicts the doctrine of omnipresence in which God is present everywhere, including hell. Some annihilationists accept the position that hell is a separation from God by taking the position that God sustains the life of his creations: when separated from God, one simply ceases to exist.
Opponents of annihilationism often argue that ceasing to exist is not eternal punishment and therefore conflicts with passages such as Matthew 25:46: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into eternal life." This argument uses a definition of the word "punishment" that must include some form of suffering. However, in common usage, punishment might be described as "an authorized imposition of deprivations—of freedom or privacy or other goods to which the person otherwise has a right, or the imposition of special burdens—because the person has been found guilty of some criminal violation, typically (though not invariably) involving harm to the innocent" (according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). By this definition, annihilationism is a form of punishment in which deprivation of existence occurs, and the punishment is eternal.
We may note that the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (1992), para. 1472, states that 'grave sin deprives us of communion with God, and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin.'
Cited texts[edit]
Hebrews 10:26-27 NLT Hellfire will consume the wicked.
2 Peter 3:7 Ungodly will be destroyed.
Romans 2:7 God will make only righteous immortal.
Genesis 3:19 We came from dust and to dust we will return.
Psalm 146:4 Our thoughts/plans perish and spirit departs upon death.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die.
2 Chronicles 28:3 Jeremiah 19:5 Burning one's offspring in the Valley of Ben Hinnom (which is where concept of Gehenna or Hell comes from[68]) is NOT a commandment of God nor did it even enter His Mind.
Malachi 4:1–3 God will "burn up" the wicked at the judgment, and they will be ashes under the sole of the feet of the righteous. "For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch...they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith Jehovah of hosts"
Matthew 10:28 Both body and soul are destroyed in hell. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
John 3:16 People who don't believe in Jesus shall perish and not receive eternal life.
John 6:51 Jesus offer... to "live forever" would make no sense apart from the fact that not all will live or exist forever.
2Thessalonians 1:9 Everlasting destruction is having been destroyed and having no way to undo that.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death.
1Corinthians 15:12–49 Only those who belong to Christ will be raised with imperishable, immortal bodies, all others perish as a man of dust.
2Peter 2:6 God made Sodom and Gomorrah an example of what is coming to the wicked, specifically by reducing Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes: "and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly"
Revelation 20:14–15 The wicked will suffer a second death, the same fate that death itself suffers (and death will be abolished—1 Corinthians 15:26): "And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."
John Wenham has classified the New Testament texts on the fate of the lost:
10 texts (4%) "Gehenna"
26 (10%) to "burning up"
59 (22%) to "destruction, perdition, utter loss or ruin"
20 (8%) to "separation from God"
25 (10%) to "death in its finality" or "the second death"
108 (41%) to "unforgiven sin", where the precise consequence is not stated
15 (6%) to "anguish"
Wenham claims that just a single verse (Revelation 14:11) sounds like eternal torment. This is out of a total of 264 references.[69] Ralph Bowles argues the word order of the verse was chosen to fit a chiastic structure, and does not support eternal punishment.[70]
Opposing texts[edit]
Proponents of the traditional Christian doctrine of hell, such as Millard Erickson,[71] identify the following biblical texts in support of this doctrine:
Psalm 52:5 "Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin: He will snatch you up and pluck you from your tent; he will uproot you from the land of the living."
Psalm 78:66 "He beat back his enemies; he put them to everlasting shame."
Isaiah 33:14 "The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: 'Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?'"
Isaiah 66:24 "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."
Jeremiah 23:40 "I will bring on you everlasting disgrace—everlasting shame that will not be forgotten."
Jeremiah 25:9 "...I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin."
Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
Matthew 8:12 "...where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 10:15 "... it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment.."
Matthew 11:24 "... it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you"
Matthew 18:8 "...It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Matthew 22:13 "...where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Same as Matt 8:12
Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
Mark 9:46–48 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"
Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name."
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
These Christians point to biblical references to eternal punishment, as well as eternal elements of this punishment, such as the unquenchable fire, the everlasting shame, the "worm" that never dies, and the smoke that rises forever, as consistent with the traditional doctrine of eternal, conscious torment of the non-believers and/or sinners in hell, although annihilationists have written credible responses to these scriptures.
Christians who belief in universal reconciliation have also criticized annihilationism using Biblical references. Books of the Bible argued to possibly support the idea of full reconciliation include the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The sections of 1 Corinthians 15:22, "As all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ", and 1 Corinthians 15:28, "God will be all in all", are cited.[72][73] Verses that seem to contradict the tradition of complete damnation and come up in arguments also include Lamentations 3:31–33 (NIV), "For no one is cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love",[74] and 1 Timothy 4:10 (NIV), "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe."[75]
Incompatibility with God's love[edit]


 This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (January 2014)
Typical of the annihilationist position are notions of divine justice and love.[1John 4:16] Some Annihilationists[who?] claim that the idea of an eternal place of torment is morally repugnant, and an unfair punishment for allegedly finite sins. How can this accurately reflect God's ultimate victory over suffering and evil, they argue, when it permanently installs a place of suffering in the final, eternal order? They also question how can the saved live in blissful joy knowing that some of their loved ones suffer forever in hell, in spite of the Bible showing what seems to be a joyful chorus of the saved because of the condemnation of the Devil,[Revelation 19:1–3] which takes place along with the non-saved[Revelation 14:9–12] Opponents of this argument respond that only God is qualified to determine divine justice,[citation needed] and raise suspicions that Annihilationists may be succumbing to modern cultural pressures and worldliness. Also the Bible In response to the suggestion that unrepentant sinners aren't deserving of eternal punishment, advocates of the sola scriptura doctrine also believe in the concept of grace, i.e. that the people who receive salvation receive it even though they don't deserve it.
The traditional doctrine of eternal torment in hell could seem to suggest that torment, or torture, is a legitimate form of punishment, since God Himself employs it, but it's clearly stated in Christian Scriptures that only God is liable to do this.[Romans 12:19][Hebrews 10:30] Also, the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (paras 2297–8) states that 'torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity'. Admitting and regretting that the Church did in the past sometimes tolerate the use of torture, the Catechism continues: 'it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person...it is necessary to work for their abolition.' However, any punishment inflicts some sort of pain (or it would not be punishment), and the Catechism does not more than give the Church's stand about what punishments are to be inflicted by temporal powers, who do not punish sins as infinite offenses.
Besides, in argumenting against suicide St. Thomas teaches that “everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can.”[76] Thus it might seem that although the damned themselves may by bad judgment prefer their own non-existence, on the objective side annihilation be a far greater, not lesser punishment. If this is true, Divine Goodness and Mercy is no argument for, but against annihilationism; the problem of hell remains but is treated elsewhere.
Hellenic origins[edit]
Many annihilationists[who?] believe that the concept of an immortal soul separate from the body comes from Greek philosophy, particularly from Plato. For example, Plato's Myth of Er depicts disembodied souls being sent underground to be punished after death. Hellenistic culture had a significant influence on the early Christian church, see also Hellenistic Judaism. By this scenario, the soul does not appear in the Bible and is seen there only by those taught to assume that the soul exists in the first place.[citation needed]
People[edit]
Advocates[edit]
British:
John Stott
John Wenham
Michael Green[77]
Philip Edgecumbe Hughes
Roger Forster
North American:
Clark Pinnock
Edward Fudge
Greg Boyd
Harold Camping
Homer Hailey
E. Earle Ellis
Agnostics[edit]
Others have remained "agnostic", not taking a stand on the issue of hell. The two listed are also British:
F. F. Bruce, who described himself as "agnostic" on this issue
N. T. Wright rejects eternal torment, universalism, and apparently also annihilation; but believes those who reject God will become dehumanized, and no longer be in the image of God[78]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Religion portal
Problem of Hell
Christian conditionalism (or "conditional immortality")
Universal reconciliation ("Universalism" in a Christian context)
Oblivion (eternal)
Soul death
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Christian faith and life, Volumes 16–17, 1913 (Google eBook) p.118
2.Jump up ^ Hebrews 12:29; Song of Solomon 8:6
3.Jump up ^ L. E. Froom, The Condionalist Faith of our Fathers (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1965–1966).[page needed]
4.Jump up ^ Richard Bauckham "Universalism: a historical survey" (@ theologicalstudies.org.uk), Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47–54. "Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form. this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality')." "Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment.3 Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as destruction seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians."
5.Jump up ^ Edwards, D. L. & Stott, J. Essentials : A Liberal–Evangelical Dialogue London : Hodder & Stoughton, 1988, pp. 313–320.
6.Jump up ^ Gore, The Religion of the Church Oxford: Mowbray, 1916, pp. 91f.
7.Jump up ^ Temple, W., Christus Veritas London: Macmillan, 1924, p. 209
8.Jump up ^ Quick O.C., Doctrines of the Creed London: Nisbet, 1933, pp. 257f.
9.Jump up ^ Simon U., The End is Not Yet Welwyn: Nisbet, 1964, pp. 206f.
10.Jump up ^ Caird G. B., The Revelation of St John the Divine London: A. and C. Black., 1966, pp. 186f., 260
11.Jump up ^ Crockett, Four Views on Hell, p52–53 (he accepts the traditional view)[page needed]
12.Jump up ^ James H. Charlesworth, Casey Deryl Elledge, J. L. Crenshaw Resurrection: the origin and future of a Biblical doctrine 2006 p37 "One may ask, however, How widespread was early belief in the resurrection? ... These sources allege that both Pharisees and Essenes held strong support for the afterlife, while Sadducees refused to"
13.Jump up ^ St. Ignatius: Epistle to the Magnesians – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm
14.Jump up ^ St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter V) – http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
15.Jump up ^ St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book II, Chapter 34 – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103234.htm
16.Jump up ^ Arnobius, Against the Heathen: Book II, paragraph 61, last sentence.
17.Jump up ^ Pinnock, "Fire then Nothing", p40
18.Jump up ^ Furthermore, it should be noted that this comment was made in regard to Calvinism and their insistence that some were pre-destined to receive Christ, and others to be eternally punished. How much weight this statement of Wesley's should be placed on his idea of eternal condemnation remains debated. Actually, the terminology "being destroyed body and soul in hell" is from the lips of Jesus. Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." However, the word "destroy" in the original Greek (apollumi) does not necessarily mean to annihilate or cause to become non-existent. This word has the idea of ruin as to its useful original purpose. SERMON 128, Preached at Bristol, in the year 1740 – http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
19.Jump up ^ Towards the conversion of England Church of England Commission on evangelism – 1946 "... but gives the idea that ' ' everyone goes to heaven when he dies. ' ' 198 During their earlier years children have to learn how to discriminate between the world of experience and the world of imagination. "
20.Jump up ^ An Inquiry; Are the Souls of the Wicked Immortal? In Three Letters, 1841. Six Sermons on the Inquiry: Is there Immortality in Sin and Suffering?, 1842; followed by several later versions; reprint
21.Jump up ^ It had the motto "No immortality, or endless life except through Jesus Christ alone." Sources: Lest We Forget 1:4 (1991). "George Storrs: 1796–1879: A Biographical Sketch". HarvestHerald.com. Retrieved June 2010.
22.Jump up ^ Letter from Fitch to Storrs, January 25, 1844
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d Gary Land, "Conditional Immortality" entry in Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists. Scarecrow, 2005, p68–69
24.Jump up ^ Roswell F. Cottrell, Review and Herald 1853 – the first clear statement. James White, "Destruction of the Wicked" series, Review and Herald 1854 [1]?. D. P. Hall, articles in 1854, republished as the book Man Not Immortal, 1854. J. N. Loughborough series; republished as Is the Soul Immortal?, 1856
25.Jump up ^ D. M. Canright, History of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul, 1871.[page needed]
26.Jump up ^ Uriah Smith, Man's Nature and Destiny, 1884[page needed]
27.Jump up ^ Le Roy Froom [and team], The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1965–66; online link. See also article series in the Review. One pair of reviews is Alfred-Félix Vaucher, "The History of Conditionalism". Andrews University Seminary Studies 4:2 (July 1966), p193–200 [Vol. II]. He considers it of "greatest use" to theologians and other readers, and presents only "few reservations" for such a "voluminous work". It is aimed at English readers, and thus focuses on Great Britain and America; Vaucher expounds on continental European supporters. He disagrees with the inclusion of the Waldenses as conditionalists, and other descriptions of their history. Vaucher, review in Andrews University Seminary Studies 5 (1967), p202–204 [Vol. I]. Vaucher praises Froom's "erudition"; a "monumental work" without "rival". He questions whether several individuals should be claimed for conditionalism, or that the Pharisees taught an immortal soul. He challenged the preaching tone of books, and related artwork
28.Jump up ^ Clark Pinnock, "The Conditional View", p147 footnote 21; in William Crockett, ed., Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992
29.Jump up ^ Vaucher, Alfred-Félix (1966). "The History of Conditionalism". Andrews University Seminary Studies 4: 193–200. ISSN 0003-2980.
30.^ Jump up to: a b c d Brian P. Phillips, "Annihilation or endless torment?". Ministry 69:8 (August 1996), p15,17–18
31.Jump up ^ Samuele Bacchiocchi, "Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation?" chapter 6 in Immortality Or Resurrection?. Biblical Perspectives, 1997; ISBN 1-930987-12-9, ISBN 978-1-930987-12-8[page needed]
32.Jump up ^ "Fundamental Beliefs" (1980) webpage from the official church website. See "25. Second Coming of Christ", "26. Death and Resurrection", "27. Millennium and the End of Sin", and "28. New Earth". The earlier 1872 and 1931 statements also support conditionalism
33.Jump up ^ The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (2000) from the Commentary Reference Series[page needed]
34.Jump up ^ http://www.churchofgod-7thday.org/Publications/Doctrinal%20Points%20Final%20Proof.pdf[full citation needed]
35.Jump up ^ White, Edward (1878). Life in Christ: A Study of the Scripture Doctrine On the Nature of Man, the Object of the Divine Incarnation, and the Conditions of Human Immortality.. White does posit an intermediate conscious state of the soul pace the standard conditional immortality belief that the dead are unconscious. Petavel, Emmanuel (1892). The Problem of Immortality. Petavel, Emmanuel (1889). The Extinction of Evil: Three Theological Essays. Three early essays from one of the classical advocates of conditional immortality, a French author. See especially "Appendix 1: Answers to Objections Urged Against the Doctrine of the Gradual Extinction of Obdurate Sinners," beginning on page 147 of the book. Hudson, Charles Frederic (1857). Debt and Grace as Related to a Doctrine of the Future Life. See Hudson's book Christ Our Life below for an expanded biblical defense. Hudson, Charles Frederic (1860). Christ Our Life: The Scriptural Argument for Immortality Through Christ Alone.
36.Jump up ^ John Stott: A Global Ministry by Timothy Dudley-Smith, p353
37.^ Jump up to: a b J. I. Packer (Spring 1997). Evangelical Annihilationism in Review (PDF). Reformation & Revival 6 (2). pp. 37–51.
38.Jump up ^ Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue by David L. Edwards with a response from John Stott. 1988, p314 [313–320]
39.Jump up ^ In 1993. John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354
40.Jump up ^ Essentials, p314
41.Jump up ^ Essentials, p314–15
42.Jump up ^ Essentials, p320
43.Jump up ^ Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; and Leicester, United Kingdom: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989, p398-407. As cited by Packer (and Pinnock)
44.Jump up ^ John Wenham, The Goodness of God. London: InterVarsity Press, 1974
45.Jump up ^ John Wenham, The Enigma of Evil, Britain: InterVarsity Press, 1985; a 2nd edition. A new edition with an extended chapter on the debate was published by Eagle books in 1994, from Guilford, England. As cited by Phillips
46.Jump up ^ Wenham, "The Case for Conditional Immortality" in N. M. S. Cameron, ed., Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992. A report on the Fourth Edinburgh Conference on Christian Dogmatics
47.Jump up ^ John Wenham, Facing Hell: An Autobiography 1913–1996. Paternoster Press: 1998
48.Jump up ^ Wenham in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, p190,191; as quoted by Phillips
49.Jump up ^ Edward W. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment. Houston: Providential, 1982. Author's webpage. Fudge is a member of the Churches of Christ
50.Jump up ^ Four Views on Hell, p137 footnote 5
51.Jump up ^ As cited by Phillips
52.Jump up ^ An early article was Pinnock, "Fire, then Nothing". Christianity Today (March 20, 1987), p40–41. He lists the evangelical authors who persuaded him as: Stott, Fudge, Hughes, and Green (as cited elsewhere in this article), and Stephen Travis, I Believe in the Second Coming of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, p196–199. Listed in Four Views on Hell, p137 footnote 5
53.Jump up ^ Basil F. C. Atkinson, Life and Immortality: An Examination of the Nature and Meaning of Life and Death as They Are Revealed in the Scriptures. Taunton, England: printed by E. Goodman, 196–?. As cited by Phillips, and WorldCat
54.Jump up ^ John Stott: A Global Ministry, p353
55.Jump up ^ An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages (1965), 133–135; The Revelation of the Seven Seals (1967), 487
56.Jump up ^ Church of England, "The Mystery of Salvation: The Doctrine Commission of the General Synod" (1995), p199; published by Church House Publishing, London, 1995; copyrighted by The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England, 1995, ISBN 0-7151-3778-6
57.Jump up ^ Evangelical Alliance; Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals (2000). "Conclusions and Recommendations". In Hilborn, David. The Nature of Hell. London: Paternoster Publishing. pp. 130–5. ISBN 978-0-9532992-2-5.
58.Jump up ^ 21st Century Evangelicals: A snapshot of the beliefs and habits of evangelical Christians in the UK. Evangelical Alliance and Christian Research, 2011, p9
59.Jump up ^ Eryl Davies, The Wrath of God, Evangelical Movement of Wales.W. G. T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment, was reissued by Banner of Truth Trust. As cited by Phillips
60.Jump up ^ Paul Helm, The Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. Banner of Truth, 1989
61.Jump up ^ Letter from F. F. Bruce to John Stott in 1989, as quoted in John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354
62.Jump up ^ According to F. F. Bruce, in his foreword to Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, p.viii
63.Jump up ^ Pinnock, "The Conditional View", in Crockett; p150 incl. footnote 28
64.Jump up ^ C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain. London and Glasgow: Collins, 1940, p114–115; emphasis in original
65.Jump up ^ Zühlsdorf, Fr. John. WDTPRS: Thursday in the 1st Week of Lent. Posted on 17 March 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Essentials, p316
67.Jump up ^ Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment (Houston: Providential Press, 1982).
68.Jump up ^ Crockett, William V. (1992). Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan.
69.Jump up ^ chapter 6, "Hell: Not Endless" in The Enigma of Evil by John Wenham, p68–92; esp. 81–83. Quotations are Wenham's terms, not the Bible's necessarily. The first edition of the book was titled, The Goodness of God, but contained little or none of this discussion
70.Jump up ^ Bowles, Ralph G. (2000). "Does Revelation 14:11 Teach Eternal Torment? Examining a Proof-text on Hell" (PDF). Evangelical Quarterly 73 (1): 21–36.
71.Jump up ^ Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), pp1242–1244.
72.Jump up ^ Richard Bauckham, "Universalism: a historical survey", Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47–54.
73.Jump up ^ Fisher, David A. (December 2011). "The Question of Universal Salvation: Will All Be Saved?" (PDF). The Maronite Voice, Volume VII, Issue No. XI. Retrieved July 2, 2014.
74.Jump up ^ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A31-33&version=NIV
75.Jump up ^ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A10&version=NIV
76.Jump up ^ S. th. II/II 64 V
77.Jump up ^ Michael Green, Evangelism Through the Local Church. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1990, p69–70
78.Jump up ^ N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, chapter 11 "Purgatory, Paradise, Hell"; preview; as cited elsewhere
Further reading[edit]
Various doctrines about hell:
William Crockett, ed., Four Views on Hell
Edward Fudge and Robert Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000
Neusner, Jacob; Avery-Peck, Alan Jeffery (2000). Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part Four: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-To-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. p. 342. ISBN 90-04-11262-6.
Advocates of annihilationism:
Bacchiocchi, Samuele (1997). Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny (PDF). Berrien Springs, Michigan: Biblical Perspectives. ISBN 1-930987-12-9. OCLC 38849060.
Clark Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent". Criswell Theological Review 4:2 (1990), p243–259. Reprinted in A Journal from the Radical Reformation 2:1 (Fall 1992), p4–21
Critics of annihilationism:
Stanley Grenz, "Directions: Is Hell Forever?" Christianity Today 42:11 (October 5, 1998), p?
Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Zondervan, 2004; ISBN 0-310-24041-7, ISBN 978-0-310-24041-9
Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. P&R Publishing, 1995; ISBN 0-87552-372-2, ISBN 978-0-87552-372-9
External links[edit]
 Look up annihilationism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
SupportiveRethinkingHell.com Exploring evangelical conditionalism
Afterlife.co.nz The Conditional Immortality Association of New Zealand Inc. is a non-profit organization established to promote a Biblical understanding of human nature, life, death and eternity as taught throughout Scripture.
"Hell Truth – Does Hell Burn Forever?" Comprehensive site covering the topic of hell and annihilationism, Amazing Facts
Jewish not Greek Shows how Biblical hermeneutics proves "annihilationism" and not the Greek philosophical belief in innate immortality.
Critical"Hell – Eternity of Hell" in Catholic Encyclopedia
Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell – Part 1, Part 2 by Alan W. Gomes. (Note the article incorrectly states Edward Fudge is from the Adventist tradition)
"Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire" by Robert A. Peterson. Christianity Today 44:12 (October 23, 2000)
  


Categories: Bible Student movement
Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses
Seventh-day Adventist theology
Annihilationism















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
Interlingua
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Simple English
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 March 2015, at 18:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism









Annihilationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Annihilationism (also known as extinctionism or destructionism[1]) is a Christian belief that apart from salvation the final punishment of human beings results in their total destruction rather than their everlasting torment. It is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists (e.g. Seventh-day Adventists) believe God's love is scripturally described as an all-consuming fire[2] and that sinful creatures cannot exist in God's presence. Thus those who elect to reject salvation through their free will are eternally destroyed because of the inherent incompatibility of sin with God's holy character. Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses posit that hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin. It stands in contrast to the traditional and long standing belief in eternal torture in the lake of fire, and the belief that everyone will be saved (universal reconciliation or simply "universalism").
The belief is in the minority, although it has appeared throughout Christian history.[3] Since 1800 the alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians.[4]
It experienced a resurgence in the 1980s when several prominent theologians including John Stott[5] were prepared to argue that it could be held sincerely as a legitimate interpretation of biblical texts (alternative to the more traditional interpretation of them), by those who give supreme authority to scripture. Earlier in the 20th century, some theologians at the University of Cambridge including Basil Atkinson supported the belief. 20th-century English theologians who favor annihilation include Bishop Charles Gore (1916),[6] William Temple, 98th Archbishop of Canterbury (1924);[7] Oliver Chase Quick, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury (1933),[8] Ulrich Ernst Simon (1964),[9] and G. B. Caird (1966).[10]
Some Christian denominations which are annihilationist were influenced by the Millerite/Adventist movement of the mid-19th century. These include the Seventh-day Adventists, Bible Students, Christadelphians and the various Advent Christian churches. Additionally, the Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in 1995 that "[h]ell is not eternal torment", but "non-being". Some Protestant and Anglican writers have also proposed annihilationist doctrines.
Annihilationists base the doctrine on their exegesis of scripture, some early church writing, historical criticism of the doctrine of hell, and the concept of God as too loving to torment his creations forever. They claim that the popular conceptions of hell stem from Jewish speculation during the intertestamental period,[11] belief in an immortal soul which originated in Greek philosophy and influenced Christian theologians, and also graphic and imaginative medieval art and poetry. Contrasting beliefs include universal reconciliation, where all souls are seen as immortal and eventually receive salvation, and special salvation, where a positive afterlife is exclusively held by just some souls.


Contents  [hide]
1 History 1.1 Bible references
1.2 Church fathers and later
1.3 Anglicanism
1.4 Millerite and Adventist movement 1.4.1 Seventh-day Adventist Church
1.4.2 Church of God (7th day) – Salem Conference
1.4.3 Others
1.5 1900s onwards
1.6 Conditional immortality
2 Justifications 2.1 Literal interpretation of scripture
2.2 Cited texts
2.3 Opposing texts
2.4 Incompatibility with God's love
2.5 Hellenic origins
3 People 3.1 Advocates
3.2 Agnostics
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

History[edit]
Bible references[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2010)
Proponents of annihilationism cite Old Testament texts such as Ezekiel 18:4 saying that "the soul that sins shall die", and New Testament texts including Matthew 10:28 where Christ speaks of the wicked being destroyed "both body and soul" in fiery hell, John 11:11 "our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep", and 1 Thessalonians 4:15 "we shall not precede those who have fallen asleep". Annihilationists believe that mankind is mortal, and the soul is in a dormant state having no concept of the passing of time when the body dies. Annihilationists furthermore believe that the dead in Christ are awaiting the resurrection of the dead mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. The ancient Hebrews, according to some modern scholars, had no concept of the eternal soul. The afterlife was simply Sheol, the abode of the dead, a bleak end to existence akin to the Greek Hades.
Those who oppose annihilationism generally refer to the New Testament, especially the story of Rich man and Lazarus. By the time of Christ, the Jews largely believed in a future resurrection of the dead.[12] Some annihilationists take these references to portray the temporary suffering of those who will be destroyed.[citation needed] The parable shows the rich man suffering in the fiery part of Hades (en to hade), where however he could see Abraham and Lazarus and converse with Abraham. Although, the parable of Lazarus could also be interpreted in the sense that it states "being in hades he lifted up his eyes", meaning that the Rich Man was in hades and was then resurrected ("lifted up his eyes"), therefore stating that at the time of the torment described and conversing with Abraham, he was no-longer in hades, but facing the lake of fire.[citation needed]
Church fathers and later[edit]
A majority of Christian writers, from Tertullian to Luther, have held to traditional notions of hell, especially Latin writers. However, the annihilationist position is not without some historical warrant. Early forms of conditional immortality can be found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch[13] (d. 108), Justin Martyr[14] (d. 165), and Irenaeus[15] (d. 202). However, the teachings of Arnobius (d. 330) are often interpreted as the first to defend annihilationism explicitly. One quote in particular stands out in Arnobius' second book of Against the Heathen:

Your interests are in jeopardy,-the salvation, I mean, of your souls; and unless you give yourselves to seek to know the Supreme God, a cruel death awaits you when freed from the bonds of body, not bringing sudden annihilation, but destroying by the bitterness of its grievous and long-protracted punishment.[16]
Eternal hell/torment has been "the semiofficial position of the church since approximately the sixth century", according to Pinnock.[17]
Additionally, at least one of John Wesley's recorded sermons are often reluctantly understood as implying annihilationism. Contrarily, the denominations of Methodism which arose through his influence typically do not agree with annihilationism.[18]
Anglicanism[edit]
Although the Church of England has through most of its history been closer to John Calvin's doctrine of conscious continuation of the immortal soul, rather than Martin Luther's "soul sleep," the doctrine of annihilation of the "wicked" following a judgment day at a literal return of Christ has had a following in the Anglican communion. In 1945 a report by the Archbishops' Commission on Evangelism, Towards the conversion of England, caused controversy with statements including that "Judgment is the ultimate separation of the evil from the good, with the consequent destruction of all that opposes itself to God's will."[19]
Millerite and Adventist movement[edit]
Recently the doctrine has been most often associated with groups descended from or with influences from the Millerite movement of the mid-19th century. These include the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Church of God (7th day) - Salem Conference, the Bible Students, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the followers of Herbert Armstrong, and the various Advent Christian churches. (The Millerite movement consisted of 50,000 to 100,000 people in the United States who eagerly expected the soon return of Jesus, and originated around William Miller).
George Storrs introduced the belief to the Millerites. He had been a Methodist minister and antislavery advocate. He was introduced to annihilationism when in 1837 he read a pamphlet by Henry Grew. He published tracts in 1841 and 1842 arguing for conditionalism and annihilation.[20] He became a Millerite, and started the Bible Examiner in 1843 to promote these doctrines.[21] However most leaders of the movement rejected these beliefs, other than Charles Fitch who accepted conditionalism.[22] Still, in 1844 the movement officially decided these issues were not essential points of belief.[23]
The Millerites expected Jesus to return around 1843 or 1844, based on Bible texts including Daniel 8:14, and one Hebrew Calendar. When the most expected date of Jesus' return (October 22, 1844) passed uneventfully, the "Great Disappointment" resulted. Followers met in 1845 to discuss the future direction of the movement, and were henceforth known as "Adventists". However they split on the issues of conditionalism and annihilation. The dominant group, which published the Advent Herald, adopted the traditional position of the immortal soul, and became the American Evangelical Adventist Conference. On the other hand, groups behind the Bible Advocate and Second Advent Watchman adopted conditionalism. Later, the main advocate of conditionalism became the World's Crisis publication, which started in the early 1850s, and played a key part in the origin of the Advent Christian Church. Storrs came to believe the wicked would never be resurrected. He and like-minded others formed the Life and Advent Union in 1863.[23]
Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]
The Seventh-day Adventist Church formed from a small group of Millerite Adventists who kept the Saturday Sabbath, and today forms the most prominent "Adventist" group.
Ellen G. White rejected the immortal soul concept in 1843. Her husband James White, along with Joseph Bates, formerly belonged to the conditionalist Christian Connection, and hinted at this belief in early publications. Together, the three constitute the primary founders of the church.
Articles appeared in the primary magazine of the movement in the 1850s, and two books were published.[24] Annihilationism was apparently established in the sect by the middle of that decade.[23] (In the 1860s, the group adopted the name "Seventh-day Adventist" and organized more formally.) D. M. Canright and Uriah Smith produced later books.[23][25][26]
A publication with noticeable impact in the wider Christian world was The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers (2 vols, 1965–1966) by Le Roy Froom.[27] It has been described as "a classic defense of conditionalism" by Clark Pinnock.[28][29] It is a lengthy historical work, documenting the supporters throughout history.
Robert Brinsmead, an Australian and former Seventh-day Adventist best known for his Present Truth Magazine, originally sponsored Edward Fudge to write The Fire that Consumes.[30]
Samuele Bacchiocchi, best known for his study From Sabbath to Sunday, has defended annihilation.[31] Pinnock wrote the foreword.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church's official beliefs support annihilation.[32]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the wicked will be punished in the lake of fire, before ultimately being destroyed. Their reading of biblical texts that are used in support of the traditional doctrine of hell is that these texts can be harmonized with this particular annihilationist understanding of hell. They see the verses in scripture such as (cf. John 3:16), which says, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, as part of many verses that show the wicked shall perish. The Seventh-day Adventists believe that these biblical texts refer to the destructive forces that are employed and the results of this punishment as being eternal, and not that the wicked specifically experience conscious torment throughout eternity.[33]
Church of God (7th day) – Salem Conference[edit]
According to the Church of God (7th day) – Salem Conference, the dead are unconscious in their graves and immortality is conditional. when God formed Adam, out of the dust of the ground, and before Adam could live, God breathed the breath of life into his body: "And man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). See also Ezekiel 18:4, 20. Psalm 146:4 says, "His (man's) breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth (dust); in that very day his thoughts perish." No man has ascended to heaven except Jesus Christ (John 3:13).[34]
Others[edit]
Other supporters have included Charles Frederic Hudson (1860), Edward White (1878), Emmanuel Petavel-Olliff (1836–1910, in 1889) and others.[35]
1900s onwards[edit]
Annihilationism seems to be gaining as a legitimate minority opinion within modern, conservative Protestant theology since the 1960s, and particularly since the 1980s. It has found support and acceptance among some British evangelicals, although viewed with greater suspicion by their American counterparts. Recently, a handful of evangelical theologians, including the prominent evangelical Anglican author John Stott, have offered at least tentative support for the doctrine, touching off a heated debate within mainstream evangelical Christianity.[36]
The subject really gained attention in the late 1980s, from publications by two evangelical Anglicans, John Stott and Philip Hughes.[37] Stott advocated annihilationism in the 1988 book Essentials: A Liberal–Evangelical Dialogue with liberal David Edwards, the first time he publicly did so.[38] However 5 years later he said that he had been an annihilationist for around fifty years.[39] Stott wrote, "Well, emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain."[40] Yet he considers emotions unreliable, and affords supreme authority to the Bible.[41] Stott supports annihilation, yet cautions, "I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively... I believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment."[42] Philip Hughes published The True Image in 1989, which has been called "[o]ne of the most significant books" in the debate.[30] A portion deals with this issue in particular.[43]
John Wenham's 1974 book The Goodness of God contained a chapter which challenged the traditional church doctrine, and was the first book from an evangelical publishing house to do so.[30][44] It was republished later as The Enigma of Evil.[45] He contributed a chapter on conditionalism in the 1992 book Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell.[46] He later published Facing Hell: An Autobiography 1913–1996, which explores the doctrine through an autobiographical approach.[47] His interest in the topic stemmed from the 1930s as a student at the University of Cambridge, where he was influenced by Basil Atkinson. (Wenham is best known for his The Elements of New Testament Greek, which has been a standard textbook for students). He wrote:
"I feel that the time has come when I must declare my mind honestly. I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away. Most of all I should rejoice to see a number of theologians ... joining ... in researching this great topic with all its ramifications."[48]
The Fire that Consumes was published in 1982 by Edward Fudge of the Churches of Christ.[49] It was described as "the best book" by Clark Pinnock, as of a decade later.[50] John Gerstner called it "the ablest critique of hell by a believer in the inspiration of the Bible."[51] Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College has defended annihilation.[52] Earlier, Atkinson had self-published the book Life and Immortality.[53] Theologians from Cambridge have been influential in supporting the annihilationist position, particularly Atkinson.[54]
Annihilationism is also the belief of some liberal Christians within mainstream denominations.
There have been individual supporters earlier. Pentecostal healing evangelist William Branham promoted annihilationism in the last few years before his death in 1965.[55]
The Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in February 1995 that Hell is not eternal torment. The report, entitled "The Mystery of Salvation" states, "Christians have professed appalling theologies which made God into a sadistic monster. ... Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being."[56] The British Evangelical Alliance ACUTE report (published in 2000) states the doctrine is a "significant minority evangelical view" that has "grown within evangelicalism in recent years".[57] A 2011 study of British evangelicals showed 19% disagreed a little or a lot with eternal conscious torment, and 31% were unsure.[58]
Several evangelical reactions to annihilationism were published.[59] Another critique was by Paul Helm in 1989.[60] In 1990, J. I. Packer delivered several lectures supporting the traditional doctrine of eternal torture. The reluctance of many evangelicals is illustrated by the fact that proponents of annihilationism have had trouble publishing their doctrines with evangelical publishing houses, with Wenham's 1973 book being the first.[30][37]
Some well respected authors have remained neutral. F. F. Bruce wrote, "annihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passages ... For myself, I remain agnostic. Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the revealed character of God."[61] Comparatively, C. S. Lewis did not systematize his own beliefs.[62] He rejected traditional pictures of the "tortures" of hell, as in The Great Divorce where he pictured it as a drab "grey town". Yet in The Problem of Pain, "Lewis sounds much like an annihilationist."[63] He wrote:
"But I notice that Our Lord, while stressing the terror of hell with unsparing severity usually emphasises the idea not of duration but of finality. Consignment to the destroying fire is usually treated as the end of the story—not as the beginning of a new story. That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannot doubt: but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration—or duration at all—we cannot say."[64]
The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (1992) describes hell as 'eternal death' (para 1861) and elsewhere states that 'the chief punishment of hell is that of eternal separation from God' (para 1035). What does 'eternal' mean in this context? St Thomas Aquinas, following Boethius, states that 'eternity is the full, perfect and simultaneous possession of unending life' (Summa Theologica I, question 10), so apparently eternal separation from God is a 'negative eternity', a complete and permanent separation from God. In the Collect (opening prayer) for the eighth Sunday after Pentecost in the Tridentine missal, we find the words 'qui sine te esse non possumus', meaning 'we who without Thee cannot be (or exist)'. Putting these two citations together in a literal sense would seem to suggest annihilationism, which, however, is contrary to Catholic teaching.
It is interesting to note that the Collect mentioned above found its way into the Anglican prayer-book, as the collect for the ninth Sunday after Trinity, but mistranslated so that it reads 'we who cannot do anything that is good without Thee'. Perhaps the Anglican translators (in the 16th century) feared that a correct translation of the Latin text might undermine the doctrine of everlasting torment in hell. In the modern ordinary form of the Mass of the Catholic Church, in the collect is included again, used on Thursday in the first week of Lent.[65]
Conditional immortality[edit]
Main article: Christian conditionalism
The doctrine is often, although not always, bound up with the notion of "conditional immortality", a belief that the soul is not innately immortal. They are related yet distinct.[66] At death, both the wicked and righteous will pass into non-existence, only to be resurrected at the final judgment. God, who alone is immortal, passes on the gift of immortality to the righteous, who will live forever in heaven or on an idyllic earth or World to Come, while the wicked will ultimately face a second death.[Rev 2:11][20:6][20:14][21:8]
Those who describe and/or those who believe in this doctrine may not use "annihilationist" to define the belief, and the terms "mortalist" and "conditionalist" are often used. Edward Fudge (1982)[67] uses "annihilationist" to refer to the both "mortalists" and "conditionalists" who believe in a universal resurrection, as well as those groups which hold that not all the wicked will rise to face the New Testament's "resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust".
Justifications[edit]
Literal interpretation of scripture[edit]
Some annihilationists ask the question: why would God choose the words like "destroy, destruction, perish, death" to signify something other than their plain meaning? While this does not require denial of the existence of hell, the suffering of the souls that inhabit it is terminated by their destruction. Adventists, and perhaps others, then understand the term "hell" to refer to the process of destruction, not a permanently existing process.
Psalm 1:6 ... but the way of the ungodly shall perish
Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish... they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
Psalm 92:7 ... shall be destroyed forever
Matthew 10:28b Rather, fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
John 3:16 ... whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Greek: destroyed) ...
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death …
Philippians 3:19 whose end is "destruction" ...
2 Thessalonians 1:9 who shall be punished with everlasting destruction ...
Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition (Greek: destruction); but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
James 4:12a There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.
Revelation 20:14 This is the second death...
Annihilationists understand there will be suffering in the death process, but ultimately the wages of sin is death, not eternal existence. Many affirm that Jesus taught limited conscious physical sufferings upon the guilty:
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. (Luke 12:47–48)
The adjectives "many" and "few" in Luke 12 could not be used if eternal conscious torment was what Jesus was teaching. He would have used "heavier" and "lighter" if the duration of conscious sufferings were eternal because when the "few" stripes were over there could be no more suffering. By very definition "few" and "many" declare not unlimited (or eternal) sufferings.
Annihilationists declare eternal existence and life is a gift gotten only from believing the gospel; (John 3:16) Paul calls this gift (immortality) an integral part of the gospel message. "...who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and 'immortality' to light through the gospel." (2 Timothy 1:10). If all souls are born immortal, then why is humanity encouraged to seek it by Paul? "To them who by patient continuance in well doing 'seek' for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:" (Romans 2:7) And also, why would Jesus offer humanity an opportunity to "live forever", if all live forever? …"if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever:" (John 6:51).
Annihilationism is based on passages that speak of the unsaved as perishing (John 3:16) or being destroyed (Matthew 10:28). Annihilationists believe that verses speaking of the second death refer to ceasing to exist. Opponents of annihilationism argue that the second death is the spiritual death (separation from God) that occurs after physical death (separation of soul and body). Annihilationists are quick to point out that spiritual death happens the moment one sins and that it is illogical to believe further separation from God can take place. In addition, annihilationists claim that complete separation from God conflicts the doctrine of omnipresence in which God is present everywhere, including hell. Some annihilationists accept the position that hell is a separation from God by taking the position that God sustains the life of his creations: when separated from God, one simply ceases to exist.
Opponents of annihilationism often argue that ceasing to exist is not eternal punishment and therefore conflicts with passages such as Matthew 25:46: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into eternal life." This argument uses a definition of the word "punishment" that must include some form of suffering. However, in common usage, punishment might be described as "an authorized imposition of deprivations—of freedom or privacy or other goods to which the person otherwise has a right, or the imposition of special burdens—because the person has been found guilty of some criminal violation, typically (though not invariably) involving harm to the innocent" (according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). By this definition, annihilationism is a form of punishment in which deprivation of existence occurs, and the punishment is eternal.
We may note that the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (1992), para. 1472, states that 'grave sin deprives us of communion with God, and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin.'
Cited texts[edit]
Hebrews 10:26-27 NLT Hellfire will consume the wicked.
2 Peter 3:7 Ungodly will be destroyed.
Romans 2:7 God will make only righteous immortal.
Genesis 3:19 We came from dust and to dust we will return.
Psalm 146:4 Our thoughts/plans perish and spirit departs upon death.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die.
2 Chronicles 28:3 Jeremiah 19:5 Burning one's offspring in the Valley of Ben Hinnom (which is where concept of Gehenna or Hell comes from[68]) is NOT a commandment of God nor did it even enter His Mind.
Malachi 4:1–3 God will "burn up" the wicked at the judgment, and they will be ashes under the sole of the feet of the righteous. "For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch...they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith Jehovah of hosts"
Matthew 10:28 Both body and soul are destroyed in hell. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
John 3:16 People who don't believe in Jesus shall perish and not receive eternal life.
John 6:51 Jesus offer... to "live forever" would make no sense apart from the fact that not all will live or exist forever.
2Thessalonians 1:9 Everlasting destruction is having been destroyed and having no way to undo that.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death.
1Corinthians 15:12–49 Only those who belong to Christ will be raised with imperishable, immortal bodies, all others perish as a man of dust.
2Peter 2:6 God made Sodom and Gomorrah an example of what is coming to the wicked, specifically by reducing Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes: "and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly"
Revelation 20:14–15 The wicked will suffer a second death, the same fate that death itself suffers (and death will be abolished—1 Corinthians 15:26): "And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."
John Wenham has classified the New Testament texts on the fate of the lost:
10 texts (4%) "Gehenna"
26 (10%) to "burning up"
59 (22%) to "destruction, perdition, utter loss or ruin"
20 (8%) to "separation from God"
25 (10%) to "death in its finality" or "the second death"
108 (41%) to "unforgiven sin", where the precise consequence is not stated
15 (6%) to "anguish"
Wenham claims that just a single verse (Revelation 14:11) sounds like eternal torment. This is out of a total of 264 references.[69] Ralph Bowles argues the word order of the verse was chosen to fit a chiastic structure, and does not support eternal punishment.[70]
Opposing texts[edit]
Proponents of the traditional Christian doctrine of hell, such as Millard Erickson,[71] identify the following biblical texts in support of this doctrine:
Psalm 52:5 "Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin: He will snatch you up and pluck you from your tent; he will uproot you from the land of the living."
Psalm 78:66 "He beat back his enemies; he put them to everlasting shame."
Isaiah 33:14 "The sinners in Zion are terrified; trembling grips the godless: 'Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?'"
Isaiah 66:24 "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."
Jeremiah 23:40 "I will bring on you everlasting disgrace—everlasting shame that will not be forgotten."
Jeremiah 25:9 "...I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin."
Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."
Matthew 8:12 "...where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 10:15 "... it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment.."
Matthew 11:24 "... it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you"
Matthew 18:8 "...It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire."
Matthew 22:13 "...where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Same as Matt 8:12
Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
Mark 9:46–48 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"
Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name."
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
These Christians point to biblical references to eternal punishment, as well as eternal elements of this punishment, such as the unquenchable fire, the everlasting shame, the "worm" that never dies, and the smoke that rises forever, as consistent with the traditional doctrine of eternal, conscious torment of the non-believers and/or sinners in hell, although annihilationists have written credible responses to these scriptures.
Christians who belief in universal reconciliation have also criticized annihilationism using Biblical references. Books of the Bible argued to possibly support the idea of full reconciliation include the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The sections of 1 Corinthians 15:22, "As all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ", and 1 Corinthians 15:28, "God will be all in all", are cited.[72][73] Verses that seem to contradict the tradition of complete damnation and come up in arguments also include Lamentations 3:31–33 (NIV), "For no one is cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love",[74] and 1 Timothy 4:10 (NIV), "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe."[75]
Incompatibility with God's love[edit]


 This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (January 2014)
Typical of the annihilationist position are notions of divine justice and love.[1John 4:16] Some Annihilationists[who?] claim that the idea of an eternal place of torment is morally repugnant, and an unfair punishment for allegedly finite sins. How can this accurately reflect God's ultimate victory over suffering and evil, they argue, when it permanently installs a place of suffering in the final, eternal order? They also question how can the saved live in blissful joy knowing that some of their loved ones suffer forever in hell, in spite of the Bible showing what seems to be a joyful chorus of the saved because of the condemnation of the Devil,[Revelation 19:1–3] which takes place along with the non-saved[Revelation 14:9–12] Opponents of this argument respond that only God is qualified to determine divine justice,[citation needed] and raise suspicions that Annihilationists may be succumbing to modern cultural pressures and worldliness. Also the Bible In response to the suggestion that unrepentant sinners aren't deserving of eternal punishment, advocates of the sola scriptura doctrine also believe in the concept of grace, i.e. that the people who receive salvation receive it even though they don't deserve it.
The traditional doctrine of eternal torment in hell could seem to suggest that torment, or torture, is a legitimate form of punishment, since God Himself employs it, but it's clearly stated in Christian Scriptures that only God is liable to do this.[Romans 12:19][Hebrews 10:30] Also, the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' (paras 2297–8) states that 'torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity'. Admitting and regretting that the Church did in the past sometimes tolerate the use of torture, the Catechism continues: 'it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person...it is necessary to work for their abolition.' However, any punishment inflicts some sort of pain (or it would not be punishment), and the Catechism does not more than give the Church's stand about what punishments are to be inflicted by temporal powers, who do not punish sins as infinite offenses.
Besides, in argumenting against suicide St. Thomas teaches that “everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can.”[76] Thus it might seem that although the damned themselves may by bad judgment prefer their own non-existence, on the objective side annihilation be a far greater, not lesser punishment. If this is true, Divine Goodness and Mercy is no argument for, but against annihilationism; the problem of hell remains but is treated elsewhere.
Hellenic origins[edit]
Many annihilationists[who?] believe that the concept of an immortal soul separate from the body comes from Greek philosophy, particularly from Plato. For example, Plato's Myth of Er depicts disembodied souls being sent underground to be punished after death. Hellenistic culture had a significant influence on the early Christian church, see also Hellenistic Judaism. By this scenario, the soul does not appear in the Bible and is seen there only by those taught to assume that the soul exists in the first place.[citation needed]
People[edit]
Advocates[edit]
British:
John Stott
John Wenham
Michael Green[77]
Philip Edgecumbe Hughes
Roger Forster
North American:
Clark Pinnock
Edward Fudge
Greg Boyd
Harold Camping
Homer Hailey
E. Earle Ellis
Agnostics[edit]
Others have remained "agnostic", not taking a stand on the issue of hell. The two listed are also British:
F. F. Bruce, who described himself as "agnostic" on this issue
N. T. Wright rejects eternal torment, universalism, and apparently also annihilation; but believes those who reject God will become dehumanized, and no longer be in the image of God[78]
See also[edit]

Portal icon Religion portal
Problem of Hell
Christian conditionalism (or "conditional immortality")
Universal reconciliation ("Universalism" in a Christian context)
Oblivion (eternal)
Soul death
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Christian faith and life, Volumes 16–17, 1913 (Google eBook) p.118
2.Jump up ^ Hebrews 12:29; Song of Solomon 8:6
3.Jump up ^ L. E. Froom, The Condionalist Faith of our Fathers (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1965–1966).[page needed]
4.Jump up ^ Richard Bauckham "Universalism: a historical survey" (@ theologicalstudies.org.uk), Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47–54. "Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form. this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality')." "Since 1800 this situation has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment.3 Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as destruction seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians."
5.Jump up ^ Edwards, D. L. & Stott, J. Essentials : A Liberal–Evangelical Dialogue London : Hodder & Stoughton, 1988, pp. 313–320.
6.Jump up ^ Gore, The Religion of the Church Oxford: Mowbray, 1916, pp. 91f.
7.Jump up ^ Temple, W., Christus Veritas London: Macmillan, 1924, p. 209
8.Jump up ^ Quick O.C., Doctrines of the Creed London: Nisbet, 1933, pp. 257f.
9.Jump up ^ Simon U., The End is Not Yet Welwyn: Nisbet, 1964, pp. 206f.
10.Jump up ^ Caird G. B., The Revelation of St John the Divine London: A. and C. Black., 1966, pp. 186f., 260
11.Jump up ^ Crockett, Four Views on Hell, p52–53 (he accepts the traditional view)[page needed]
12.Jump up ^ James H. Charlesworth, Casey Deryl Elledge, J. L. Crenshaw Resurrection: the origin and future of a Biblical doctrine 2006 p37 "One may ask, however, How widespread was early belief in the resurrection? ... These sources allege that both Pharisees and Essenes held strong support for the afterlife, while Sadducees refused to"
13.Jump up ^ St. Ignatius: Epistle to the Magnesians – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm
14.Jump up ^ St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter V) – http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
15.Jump up ^ St. Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book II, Chapter 34 – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103234.htm
16.Jump up ^ Arnobius, Against the Heathen: Book II, paragraph 61, last sentence.
17.Jump up ^ Pinnock, "Fire then Nothing", p40
18.Jump up ^ Furthermore, it should be noted that this comment was made in regard to Calvinism and their insistence that some were pre-destined to receive Christ, and others to be eternally punished. How much weight this statement of Wesley's should be placed on his idea of eternal condemnation remains debated. Actually, the terminology "being destroyed body and soul in hell" is from the lips of Jesus. Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." However, the word "destroy" in the original Greek (apollumi) does not necessarily mean to annihilate or cause to become non-existent. This word has the idea of ruin as to its useful original purpose. SERMON 128, Preached at Bristol, in the year 1740 – http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
19.Jump up ^ Towards the conversion of England Church of England Commission on evangelism – 1946 "... but gives the idea that ' ' everyone goes to heaven when he dies. ' ' 198 During their earlier years children have to learn how to discriminate between the world of experience and the world of imagination. "
20.Jump up ^ An Inquiry; Are the Souls of the Wicked Immortal? In Three Letters, 1841. Six Sermons on the Inquiry: Is there Immortality in Sin and Suffering?, 1842; followed by several later versions; reprint
21.Jump up ^ It had the motto "No immortality, or endless life except through Jesus Christ alone." Sources: Lest We Forget 1:4 (1991). "George Storrs: 1796–1879: A Biographical Sketch". HarvestHerald.com. Retrieved June 2010.
22.Jump up ^ Letter from Fitch to Storrs, January 25, 1844
23.^ Jump up to: a b c d Gary Land, "Conditional Immortality" entry in Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-day Adventists. Scarecrow, 2005, p68–69
24.Jump up ^ Roswell F. Cottrell, Review and Herald 1853 – the first clear statement. James White, "Destruction of the Wicked" series, Review and Herald 1854 [1]?. D. P. Hall, articles in 1854, republished as the book Man Not Immortal, 1854. J. N. Loughborough series; republished as Is the Soul Immortal?, 1856
25.Jump up ^ D. M. Canright, History of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul, 1871.[page needed]
26.Jump up ^ Uriah Smith, Man's Nature and Destiny, 1884[page needed]
27.Jump up ^ Le Roy Froom [and team], The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers, 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1965–66; online link. See also article series in the Review. One pair of reviews is Alfred-Félix Vaucher, "The History of Conditionalism". Andrews University Seminary Studies 4:2 (July 1966), p193–200 [Vol. II]. He considers it of "greatest use" to theologians and other readers, and presents only "few reservations" for such a "voluminous work". It is aimed at English readers, and thus focuses on Great Britain and America; Vaucher expounds on continental European supporters. He disagrees with the inclusion of the Waldenses as conditionalists, and other descriptions of their history. Vaucher, review in Andrews University Seminary Studies 5 (1967), p202–204 [Vol. I]. Vaucher praises Froom's "erudition"; a "monumental work" without "rival". He questions whether several individuals should be claimed for conditionalism, or that the Pharisees taught an immortal soul. He challenged the preaching tone of books, and related artwork
28.Jump up ^ Clark Pinnock, "The Conditional View", p147 footnote 21; in William Crockett, ed., Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992
29.Jump up ^ Vaucher, Alfred-Félix (1966). "The History of Conditionalism". Andrews University Seminary Studies 4: 193–200. ISSN 0003-2980.
30.^ Jump up to: a b c d Brian P. Phillips, "Annihilation or endless torment?". Ministry 69:8 (August 1996), p15,17–18
31.Jump up ^ Samuele Bacchiocchi, "Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation?" chapter 6 in Immortality Or Resurrection?. Biblical Perspectives, 1997; ISBN 1-930987-12-9, ISBN 978-1-930987-12-8[page needed]
32.Jump up ^ "Fundamental Beliefs" (1980) webpage from the official church website. See "25. Second Coming of Christ", "26. Death and Resurrection", "27. Millennium and the End of Sin", and "28. New Earth". The earlier 1872 and 1931 statements also support conditionalism
33.Jump up ^ The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (2000) from the Commentary Reference Series[page needed]
34.Jump up ^ http://www.churchofgod-7thday.org/Publications/Doctrinal%20Points%20Final%20Proof.pdf[full citation needed]
35.Jump up ^ White, Edward (1878). Life in Christ: A Study of the Scripture Doctrine On the Nature of Man, the Object of the Divine Incarnation, and the Conditions of Human Immortality.. White does posit an intermediate conscious state of the soul pace the standard conditional immortality belief that the dead are unconscious. Petavel, Emmanuel (1892). The Problem of Immortality. Petavel, Emmanuel (1889). The Extinction of Evil: Three Theological Essays. Three early essays from one of the classical advocates of conditional immortality, a French author. See especially "Appendix 1: Answers to Objections Urged Against the Doctrine of the Gradual Extinction of Obdurate Sinners," beginning on page 147 of the book. Hudson, Charles Frederic (1857). Debt and Grace as Related to a Doctrine of the Future Life. See Hudson's book Christ Our Life below for an expanded biblical defense. Hudson, Charles Frederic (1860). Christ Our Life: The Scriptural Argument for Immortality Through Christ Alone.
36.Jump up ^ John Stott: A Global Ministry by Timothy Dudley-Smith, p353
37.^ Jump up to: a b J. I. Packer (Spring 1997). Evangelical Annihilationism in Review (PDF). Reformation & Revival 6 (2). pp. 37–51.
38.Jump up ^ Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue by David L. Edwards with a response from John Stott. 1988, p314 [313–320]
39.Jump up ^ In 1993. John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354
40.Jump up ^ Essentials, p314
41.Jump up ^ Essentials, p314–15
42.Jump up ^ Essentials, p320
43.Jump up ^ Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; and Leicester, United Kingdom: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989, p398-407. As cited by Packer (and Pinnock)
44.Jump up ^ John Wenham, The Goodness of God. London: InterVarsity Press, 1974
45.Jump up ^ John Wenham, The Enigma of Evil, Britain: InterVarsity Press, 1985; a 2nd edition. A new edition with an extended chapter on the debate was published by Eagle books in 1994, from Guilford, England. As cited by Phillips
46.Jump up ^ Wenham, "The Case for Conditional Immortality" in N. M. S. Cameron, ed., Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992. A report on the Fourth Edinburgh Conference on Christian Dogmatics
47.Jump up ^ John Wenham, Facing Hell: An Autobiography 1913–1996. Paternoster Press: 1998
48.Jump up ^ Wenham in Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, p190,191; as quoted by Phillips
49.Jump up ^ Edward W. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment. Houston: Providential, 1982. Author's webpage. Fudge is a member of the Churches of Christ
50.Jump up ^ Four Views on Hell, p137 footnote 5
51.Jump up ^ As cited by Phillips
52.Jump up ^ An early article was Pinnock, "Fire, then Nothing". Christianity Today (March 20, 1987), p40–41. He lists the evangelical authors who persuaded him as: Stott, Fudge, Hughes, and Green (as cited elsewhere in this article), and Stephen Travis, I Believe in the Second Coming of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982, p196–199. Listed in Four Views on Hell, p137 footnote 5
53.Jump up ^ Basil F. C. Atkinson, Life and Immortality: An Examination of the Nature and Meaning of Life and Death as They Are Revealed in the Scriptures. Taunton, England: printed by E. Goodman, 196–?. As cited by Phillips, and WorldCat
54.Jump up ^ John Stott: A Global Ministry, p353
55.Jump up ^ An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages (1965), 133–135; The Revelation of the Seven Seals (1967), 487
56.Jump up ^ Church of England, "The Mystery of Salvation: The Doctrine Commission of the General Synod" (1995), p199; published by Church House Publishing, London, 1995; copyrighted by The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England, 1995, ISBN 0-7151-3778-6
57.Jump up ^ Evangelical Alliance; Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals (2000). "Conclusions and Recommendations". In Hilborn, David. The Nature of Hell. London: Paternoster Publishing. pp. 130–5. ISBN 978-0-9532992-2-5.
58.Jump up ^ 21st Century Evangelicals: A snapshot of the beliefs and habits of evangelical Christians in the UK. Evangelical Alliance and Christian Research, 2011, p9
59.Jump up ^ Eryl Davies, The Wrath of God, Evangelical Movement of Wales.W. G. T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment, was reissued by Banner of Truth Trust. As cited by Phillips
60.Jump up ^ Paul Helm, The Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. Banner of Truth, 1989
61.Jump up ^ Letter from F. F. Bruce to John Stott in 1989, as quoted in John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354
62.Jump up ^ According to F. F. Bruce, in his foreword to Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, p.viii
63.Jump up ^ Pinnock, "The Conditional View", in Crockett; p150 incl. footnote 28
64.Jump up ^ C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain. London and Glasgow: Collins, 1940, p114–115; emphasis in original
65.Jump up ^ Zühlsdorf, Fr. John. WDTPRS: Thursday in the 1st Week of Lent. Posted on 17 March 2011.
66.Jump up ^ Essentials, p316
67.Jump up ^ Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment (Houston: Providential Press, 1982).
68.Jump up ^ Crockett, William V. (1992). Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan.
69.Jump up ^ chapter 6, "Hell: Not Endless" in The Enigma of Evil by John Wenham, p68–92; esp. 81–83. Quotations are Wenham's terms, not the Bible's necessarily. The first edition of the book was titled, The Goodness of God, but contained little or none of this discussion
70.Jump up ^ Bowles, Ralph G. (2000). "Does Revelation 14:11 Teach Eternal Torment? Examining a Proof-text on Hell" (PDF). Evangelical Quarterly 73 (1): 21–36.
71.Jump up ^ Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), pp1242–1244.
72.Jump up ^ Richard Bauckham, "Universalism: a historical survey", Themelios 4.2 (September 1978): 47–54.
73.Jump up ^ Fisher, David A. (December 2011). "The Question of Universal Salvation: Will All Be Saved?" (PDF). The Maronite Voice, Volume VII, Issue No. XI. Retrieved July 2, 2014.
74.Jump up ^ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A31-33&version=NIV
75.Jump up ^ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A10&version=NIV
76.Jump up ^ S. th. II/II 64 V
77.Jump up ^ Michael Green, Evangelism Through the Local Church. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1990, p69–70
78.Jump up ^ N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, chapter 11 "Purgatory, Paradise, Hell"; preview; as cited elsewhere
Further reading[edit]
Various doctrines about hell:
William Crockett, ed., Four Views on Hell
Edward Fudge and Robert Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000
Neusner, Jacob; Avery-Peck, Alan Jeffery (2000). Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part Four: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-To-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. p. 342. ISBN 90-04-11262-6.
Advocates of annihilationism:
Bacchiocchi, Samuele (1997). Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny (PDF). Berrien Springs, Michigan: Biblical Perspectives. ISBN 1-930987-12-9. OCLC 38849060.
Clark Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent". Criswell Theological Review 4:2 (1990), p243–259. Reprinted in A Journal from the Radical Reformation 2:1 (Fall 1992), p4–21
Critics of annihilationism:
Stanley Grenz, "Directions: Is Hell Forever?" Christianity Today 42:11 (October 5, 1998), p?
Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment. Zondervan, 2004; ISBN 0-310-24041-7, ISBN 978-0-310-24041-9
Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. P&R Publishing, 1995; ISBN 0-87552-372-2, ISBN 978-0-87552-372-9
External links[edit]
 Look up annihilationism in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
SupportiveRethinkingHell.com Exploring evangelical conditionalism
Afterlife.co.nz The Conditional Immortality Association of New Zealand Inc. is a non-profit organization established to promote a Biblical understanding of human nature, life, death and eternity as taught throughout Scripture.
"Hell Truth – Does Hell Burn Forever?" Comprehensive site covering the topic of hell and annihilationism, Amazing Facts
Jewish not Greek Shows how Biblical hermeneutics proves "annihilationism" and not the Greek philosophical belief in innate immortality.
Critical"Hell – Eternity of Hell" in Catholic Encyclopedia
Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell – Part 1, Part 2 by Alan W. Gomes. (Note the article incorrectly states Edward Fudge is from the Adventist tradition)
"Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire" by Robert A. Peterson. Christianity Today 44:12 (October 23, 2000)
  


Categories: Bible Student movement
Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses
Seventh-day Adventist theology
Annihilationism















Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
Interlingua
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Simple English
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last modified on 9 March 2015, at 18:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism









Nontrinitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd


Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]








Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]










Theology[show]

















History ·
 Tradition
 [show]
















Related topics[show]














Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]






























Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to monotheistic belief systems, primarily within Christianity, which reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, namely, the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are co-eternal, co-equal, and indivisibly united in one being or ousia.
According to churches that consider ecumenical council decisions final, trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils,[1][2][3] that of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which declared the full divinity of the Son,[4] and the First Council of Constantinople (381), which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit.[5]
Some councils later than that of Nicaea but earlier than that of Constantinople, such as the Council of Rimini (359), which has been described as "the crowning victory of Arianism",[6] disagreed with the Trinitarian formula of the Council of Nicaea. Nontrinitarians disagree with the findings of the Trinitarian Councils for various reasons, including the belief that the writings of the Bible take precedence over creeds (a view shared by the mainline Protestant churches, which on the contrary uphold the doctrine of the Trinity) or that there was a Great Apostasy prior to the Council. Church and State in Europe and the Middle East suppressed nontrinitarian belief as heresy from the 4th to 18th century, notably with regard to Arianism,[7][8] Catharism,[9] and the teaching of Michael Servetus.[10] Today nontrinitarians represent a minority of professed Christians.
Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism, and Subordinationism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in A.D. 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.[11] Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.
Modern nontrinitarian Christian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International and the United Church of God.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not present in the other major Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam.


Contents  [hide]
1 Christianity 1.1 Modern Christian groupings
1.2 Unitarian Universalism
2 Judaism
3 Islam
4 History 4.1 Early Christianity
4.2 Following the Reformation
5 Points of dissent 5.1 Scriptural support
5.2 Questions over the alleged co-equal deity of Jesus 5.2.1 Views on allegedly Trinitarian passages in scripture 5.2.1.1 John 1:1
5.2.1.2 John 10:30
5.2.1.3 John 20:28-29
5.2.1.4 2 Corinthians 13:14
5.2.1.5 Philippians 2:5-6
5.2.1.6 Hebrews 9:14

5.3 Terminology
5.4 Holy Spirit 5.4.1 Unitarian and Arian
5.4.2 Binitarianism
5.4.3 Modalist groups
5.4.4 Latter Day Saint movement
5.4.5 Judaism
5.4.6 Other groups
5.5 Inter-religious dialogue
6 Purported pagan origins 6.1 Hellenic influences
7 Christian groups
8 People
9 See also
10 Notes
11 Further reading
12 External links

Christianity[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2014)
The Christian Apologists and other Church Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, having adopted and formulated the Logos Christology, considered the Son of God as the instrument used by the supreme God, the Father, to bring the creation into existence. Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian in particular state that the internal Logos of God (Gr. Logos endiathetos, Lat. ratio), that is his impersonal divine reason, was begotten as Logos uttered (Gr. Logos proforikos, Lat. sermo, verbum) and thus became a person to be used for the purpose of creation.[12]
The Encyclopædia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."[13] Although the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a small number of Christian groups and denominations.
Various views exist regarding the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
##Those who follow the life and teaching of Jesus but consider the question of divinity to be completely inconsequential and a distraction to the message that Jesus taught.[citation needed]
##Those who believe that Jesus is not God, nor absolutely equal to God, but was either God's subordinate Son, a messenger from God, or prophet, or the perfect created human. ##Adoptionism (2nd century A.D.) holds that Jesus became divine at his baptism (sometimes associated with the Gospel of Mark) or at his resurrection (sometimes associated with Saint Paul and Shepherd of Hermas).
##Arianism – Arius (A.D. c. 250 or 256 - 336) believed that the pre-existent Son of God was directly created by the Father, that he was subordinate to God the Father, and that only the Father was without beginning or end, but that the Son was also divine[citation needed]. Arius' position was that the Son was brought forth as the very first of God's creations, and that the Father later created all things through the Son. Arius taught that in the creation of the universe, the Father was the ultimate Creator, supplying all the materials, directing the design, while the Son worked the materials, making all things at the bidding and in the service of the Father, by which "through [Christ] all things came into existence". Arianism became the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire, notably the Visigoths until 589.[14]
##Psilanthropism – Ebionites (1st to 4th century A.D.) denied the virgin birth and believed the Son to be nothing more than a special human.
##Socinianism – Photinus taught that Jesus, though perfect and sinless, and who was Messiah and Redeemer, was only the perfect human Son of God, and had no pre-human existence prior to the virgin birth. They take verses such as John 1:1 as simply God's "plan" existing in the Mind of God, before Christ's birth.
##Many Gnostic traditions held that the Christ is a heavenly Aeon but not one with the Father.
##Those who believe that the heavenly Father, the resurrected Son and the Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons. ##Modalism – Sabellius (fl. c. 215) stated that God has taken numerous forms in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures, and that God has manifested himself in three primary modes in regards to the salvation of mankind. His contention is that "Father, Son, and Spirit" were simply different roles played by the same Divine Person in various circumstances in history.[15] Thus God is Father in creation (God created a Son through the virgin birth), Son in redemption (God manifested himself into the begotten man Christ Jesus for the purpose of his death upon the cross), and Holy Spirit in regeneration (God's indwelling Spirit within the Son and within the souls of Christian believers). In light of this view, God is not three distinct persons, but rather one Person manifesting himself in multiple ways.[15] Trinitarians condemn this view as a heresy. The chief critic of Sabellianism was Tertullian, who labeled the movement "Patripassianism", from the Latin words pater for "father", and passus from the verb "to suffer" because it implied that the Father suffered on the Cross. It was coined by Tertullian in his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I, "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."
##Those who believe that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually three distinct almighty "Gods" with distinct natures, acting as one Divine Group, united in purpose. ##Tri-theism – John Philoponus, an Aristotelian and monophysite in Alexandria, in the middle of the 6th century, saw in the Trinity three separate natures, substances and deities, according to the number of divine persons. He sought to justify this view by the Aristotelian categories of genus, species and individuum. In the Middle Ages, Roscellin of Compiegne, the founder of Nominalism, argued for three distinct almighty Gods, with three distinct natures, who were one in purpose, acting together as one divine Group or Godhead. He said, though, like Philoponus, that unless the Three Persons are tres res (three things with distinct natures), the whole Trinity must have been incarnate. And therefore, since only the Logos was made flesh, the other two Persons must have had distinct "natures", separate from the Logos, and so had to be separate and distinct Gods, though all three were one in divine work and plan. Thus in light of this view, they would be considered "three Gods in one". This notion was condemned by St. Anselm.
##Those who believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person. ##Binitarianism – people through history who believed that God is only two co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father and the Word, not three. They taught that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person, but is the power or divine influence of the Father and Son, emanating out to the universe, in creation, and to believers.
##Dualism
##Marcionism – Marcion (A.D. c. 110-160) believed that there were two deities, one of creation and judgment (in the Hebrew Bible) and one of redemption and mercy (in the New Testament).
##Other concepts ##Docetism comes from the Greek: δοκέω (dokeo), meaning "to seem." This view holds that Jesus only seemed to be human and only appeared to die.

Modern Christian groupings[edit]
##American Unitarian Conference started as a reply to Unitarian Universalism becoming 'too theologically liberal'. They refrain from social activism and believe religion and science can improve the human condition. They have a deist population.[citation needed]
##Associated Bible Students believe that the Father is greater than the Son in all ways, and that the Trinity doctrine is unscriptural. They hold to beliefs similar to Jehovah's Witnesses.[16][17][18]


##Christadelphians hold that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, the Father, and that Jesus was an actual human[19] (and needed to be so in order to save humans from their sins[20]). The "holy spirit" terminology in the Bible is explained as referring to God's power,[21] or God's character/mind[22] (depending on the context).
##Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith).[23]
##Cooneyites are a non-Trinitarian Christian sect who split off from the Two by Twos sect in 1928 following Edward Cooney's excommunication from the main group. Cooneyites deny the Living Witness Doctrine; they have congregations in Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand and the USA.
##The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for Church of Christ) view is that Jesus Christ is human but endowed by God with attributes not found in ordinary humans, though lacking attributes found in God. They further contend that it is God's will to worship Jesus.[24] For Iglesia ni Cristo Christ has some divine attributes but it is not inherent to him, given only by the one true God, the Father. Iglesia ni Cristo contends that in the beginning Christ is "Logos" i.e. in the mind of God (reason for creation, a plan of God)before God sets the foundation of the world. Christ's existence or coming in the future (as the greatest messenger of God for all time) is already in the mind of God, planned by God and spoken it even in the Garden of Eden (the "seed of a woman" in Genesis 3:15) and later in the time of the prophets through the numerous prophecies about his existence or his coming in the 1st century. His existence only started at the womb of Mary prior to that he is still the "Logos" or a "Word of God". Later as mentioned in Revelation (Rev. 19:13), when the Logos or prophecies were fulfilled he was even called the "Word of God".[citation needed]
##Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only God the Father, Jehovah, is the one true almighty God, even over his Son. They consider Jesus to be "the First-begotten Son", God's only direct creation, and the very first creation by God. They give relative "worship" or "obeisance" (homage, as to a king) to Christ,[25] pray through him as God's only high priest, consider Jesus Christ to be Mediator and Messiah, but they believe that only the Father is without beginning, and that the Father is greater than the Son in all things; only Jehovah the Father therefore is worthy of highest worship or "sacred service". They believe that the Son had a beginning, and was brought forth at a certain point, as "the firstborn of all creation" and "the only-begotten". They identify Jesus as the Archangel Michael, mentioned in the Bible at Jude 9. They believe he left heaven to become Jesus Christ on earth, and that after his ascension to heaven he resumed his pre-human identity. This belief is partly based upon 1 Thessalonians 4:16, in which "the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel". They also cite passages from the books of Daniel and Revelation in which Jesus and Michael take similar action and exercise similar authority, concluding these scriptures indicate them to be the same person.[26] They do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person, but consider it to be God's divine active force.[27]
##The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often referred to as Mormonism, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings that are not united in substance, a view sometimes called social trinitarianism. Members of this church believe the three individual deities are "one" in will or purpose, as Jesus was "one" with his disciples, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Godhead or a Divine Council, and are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission.[28] Because their official belief is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each "Gods" in one Godhead, Mormonism is said to hold a form of tri-theism. Some view Mormonism as a form of Arianism.[29][30][31] Like Arianism, Mormons believe that God created Christ,[29][30][31][32] that he is subordinate to God the Father[30][33] and that Christ created the universe.[33][34] However, Mormon doctrine varies significantly from the teachings of Arius.[35] Mormons also do not subscribe to the ideas that Christ was unlike the Father in substance,[36] that the Father could not appear on earth,[37] nor that Christ was adopted by the Father,[32] as found in Arianism.[34][38] Mormons assert that the classification of deity in terms of a substance was a post-apostolic corruption, and that God differs from humans not in substance, but in intelligence. While Mormons regard God the Father as the Supreme Being and literal Father of the spirits of all humankind, they also teach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are equally divine in that they share in the Father's "comprehension of all things".[39]
##The Members Church of God International believes in the divinity of Christ but rejects the doctrine of Trinity. They believe in what appears to be a Subordationist viewpoint in which Jesus Christ, is the Father's only Begotten Son (in Romanized Greek: monogenestheos, meaning "only-begotten god") and thus is subject to the Father.[citation needed]
##Oneness Pentecostalism is a subset of Pentecostalism that believes God is only one person, and that he manifests himself in different ways, faces, or "modes": "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. The term Son always refers to the Incarnation, and never to deity apart from humanity."[40] Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus was "Son" only when he became flesh on earth, but was the Father prior to his being made human. They refer to the Father as the "Spirit" and the Son as the "Flesh". Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity doctrine, viewing it as pagan and unscriptural, and hold to the Jesus' Name doctrine with respect to baptisms. Oneness Pentecostals are often referred to as "Modalists" or "Sabellians" or "Jesus Only".
##Some forms of Quakerism hold universalist views.[clarification needed]
##Denominations within the Sabbatarian tradition (Armstrongism) believe that Christ the Son and God the Father are co-eternal, but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a being or person. Mainstream Christians characterise this teaching as the heresy of Binitarianism, the teaching that God is a "Duality", or "two-in-one", rather than three. Armstrong theology holds that God is a "Family", that expands eventually, that "God reproduces Himself", but that originally there was a co-eternal "Duality", God and the Word, rather than a "Trinity".
##Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in one person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. The Father, the being or soul of God, was born into the world and put on a body from Mary. Throughout his life, Jesus put away all human desires and tendencies until he was completely divine. After his resurrection, he influences the world through the Holy Spirit, which is his activity. Thus Jesus Christ is the one God; the Father as to his soul, the Son as to his body, and the Holy Spirit as to his activity in the world.
##Unitarian Christians and Unitarian Universalist Christians are Holy Spirit Unitarians[clarification needed].
Nontrinitarian doctrine often generates controversy among mainstream Christians, as most trinitarians consider it heresy not to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. At times, segments of Nicene Christianity reacted with ultimate severity toward nontrinitarian views. Following the Reformation, among some Protestant groups such as the Unitarians and Christadelphians, the same views have been accommodated.
Unitarian Universalism[edit]
Members of Unitarian Universalism may or may not identify as Christian. Traditionally, unitarianism was a form of Christianity that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Unitarianism was rejected by orthodox Christianity at the First Council of Nicaea, an ecumenical council held in 325, but resurfaced subsequently in Church history, especially during the theological turmoils of the Protestant Reformation. In 1961, the American Unitarian Association (AUA) was consolidated with the Universalist Church of America (UCA), forming the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Judaism[edit]
In all branches of Judaism, the God of the Hebrew Bible is considered one singular entity, with no divisions, or multi-persons within, and they reject the idea of a co-equal multi-personal Godhead or "Trinity", as actually against the Shema. They do not consider the Hebrew word for "one" (that is "echad") as meaning anything other than a simple numerical one.[41][42] Citing examples for "echad" in the Hebrew Scriptures as being either just one king, one house, one garden, one army, or one man, etc. Also, they reject the notion that somehow there are "traces of the Trinity" in the Hebrew word "elohim". Which in given contexts simply means "God" in superlative majesty, not necessarily "multipersonal godhead". The Jewish polemics against the Trinity doctrine date almost from its very conception. Even in the Talmud, R. Simlai (3rd century) declared, in refutation of the "heretics," "The three words 'El,' 'Elohim,' and 'Yhwh' (Josh. xxii. 22) connote one and the same person, as one might say, 'King, Emperor, Augustus'" (Yer. Ber. ix. 12d).[43]
Islam[edit]
In Islam's holy book, the Quran, Allah (God) denounces the concept of Trinity (Qur'an 4:171, 5:72-73, 112) as an over-reverence by Christians of God's Word, the prophet and messiah Jesus Christ son of the virgin Mary, while maintaining Jesus as one of the most important and respected prophets and Messengers of God, (2:136) primarily sent to prevent the Jews from changing the Torah, (61:6) and to refresh and reaffirm his original message as revealed to Moses and earlier New Testament prophets. The creation of Jesus is framed similar to the creation of Adam out of dust, but with Jesus' birth meaning his creation excludes male human intervention rather than creation completely without human participation (3:59). Belief in all of the aforementioned about Jesus as a prophet (5:78), as well as belief in the original gospel and Torah and belief in Jesus' virgin birth (3:45) are core criterion of being a Muslim and Quranic criterion for salvation in the hereafter along with belief in the Prophet Muhammad and all the prior prophets. In short, God is seen as being both perfect and indivisible. He can therefore have no peer or equal. Jesus, being God's creation, can never be considered to be equal with God or a part of God. To do so is considered by Islam to be blasphemy.
History[edit]
Part of a series on the
History of
 Christian theology
Malmesbury Abbey's 1407 Bible from Belgium
Background
Theology · Early Christianity · Timeline · History of Christianity · Ecclesiastical polity · Trinitarianism · Nontrinitarianism · Restorationism · Christology · Mariology · Biblical canon · Deuterocanonical books
Ecumenical Creeds
Apostles' · Nicene
Chalcedonian · Athanasian
Patristics and Councils
Church Fathers · Augustine
Nicaea · Ephesus · Chalcedon
Post-Nicene development
Heresy · Monophysitism · Monothelitism · Iconoclasm · Gregory I · Alcuin · Photios · East–West Schism · Scholasticism · Aquinas · Anselm · Palamas
Reformation
Protestant Reformation · Luther · Melanchthon · Indulgences · Justification · Five solae · 95 Theses · Book of Concord · Predestination · Calvinism · Arminianism · English Reformation · Counter-Reformation · Trent
Since the Reformation
Pietism · Revivalism · John Wesley · Great Awakenings · Holiness movement · Restoration Movement · Existentialism · Liberalism · Modernism (Roman Catholicism) · Postmodernism · Vatican II · Radical Orthodoxy · Jean-Luc Marion · Hermeneutics · Liberation theology · Christian anarchism
P christianity.svg Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Early Christianity[edit]
Most nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity (see Apostolic Age) was nontrinitarian, but (depending on which church) believe rather that early Christianity was either strictly Unitarian or Binitarian or Modalist, as in the case of the Montanists, Marcionites, and Christian Gnostics. Early Christianity eventually changed after the edicts of Emperor Constantine I and his sentence pronounced on Arius, which eventually resulted in the adoption of Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Theodosius I.[citation needed]



 The First Council of Nicaea depicted with Arius beneath the feet of Emperor Constantine and the bishops
Because they believe it was during a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically consider the doctrine questionable. Nontrinitarians see the Nicene Creed and the results of the Council of Chalcedon as essentially political documents, resulting from the subordination of true doctrine to state interests by leaders of the Catholic Church, so that the church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.[citation needed]
Although nontrinitarian beliefs continued to multiply, and among some peoples were dominant for hundreds of years after their inception—e.g. Lombards, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals—Trinitarians eventually gained prominence in the Roman Empire. Nontrinitarians typically argue that the early nontrinitarian beliefs of Christianity, e.g. Arianism, were systematically suppressed (often to the point of death),[44] and that many early Christian scriptural sources and so called heretical texts have been as thoroughly lost as if they had been systematically burnt.[citation needed] After the First Council of Nicaea, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued an edict against Arius's writings which included systematic book burning.[45] In spite of issuing this decree, Constantine soon ordered the readmission of Arius to the church, removed those bishops who, like Athanasius, upheld the teaching of Nicaea,[46] allowed Arianism to grow within the Empire and thus to spread to Germanic tribes on the frontier,[47] and was himself baptized into the Arian version of Christianity.[48] His successors as Christian emperors promoted Arianism, until Theodosius I came to the throne in 379 and supported Nicene Christianity.
The Easter letter that Athanasius issued in 367, when the Eastern Empire was ruled by the Arian Emperor Valens, defined what books belong to the Old Testament and the New Testament, together with seven other books not included in the biblical canon but appointed "for instruction in the word of godliness"; at the same time it excluded what Athanasius called apocryphal writings, falsely presented as ancient.[49] Elaine Pagels writes: "In AD 367, Athanasius, the zealous bishop of Alexandria... issued an Easter letter in which he demanded that Egyptian monks destroy all such unacceptable writings, except for those he specifically listed as 'acceptable' even 'canonical' — a list that constitutes the present 'New Testament'".[50][51] Some nontrinitarians say that the condemned writings were Arian books.[citation needed]
Some scholars investigating the historical Jesus assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God nor the Trinity (see, for example, the Jesus Seminar).
Nontrinitarians also dispute the veracity of the Nicene Creed based on its adoption nearly 300 years after the life of Jesus as a result of conflict within pre-Nicene early Christianity. Nontrinitarians (both Modalists and Unitarians) also generally say that Athanasius and others at Nicaea adopted Greek Platonic philosophy and concepts, and incorporated them in their views of God and Christ.[52] Nontrinitarians also cite scriptures such as Matthew 15:9 and Ephesians 4:14 that warn the reader to beware the doctrines of men.[citation needed]
The author H. G. Wells, later famous for his contribution to science-fiction, wrote in The Outline of History: "We shall see presently how later on all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the Trinity, at any rate from him."[53]
The question of why such a central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this and his opposition to infant baptism.
The Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics describes the five stages that led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.[54]
1.The acceptance of the pre-human existence of Jesus as the (middle-platonic) Logos, namely, as the medium between the transcendent sovereign God and the created cosmos. The doctrine of Logos was accepted by the Apologists and by other Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as Justin the Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, and the 4th century Arius.
2.The doctrine of the timeless generation of the Son from the Father as it was articulated by Origen in his effort to support the ontological immutability of God, that he is ever-being a father and a creator. The doctrine of the timeless generation was adopted by Athanasius of Alexandria.
3.The acceptance of the idea that the son of God is homoousios to his father, that is, of the same transcendent nature. This position was declared in the Nicene Creed, which specifically states the son of God is as immutable as his father.
4.The acceptance that the Holy Spirit also has ontological equality as a third person in a divine Trinity and the final Trinitarian terminology by the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers.
5.The addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Following the Reformation[edit]
Main article: History of Unitarianism
Following the Protestant Reformation, and the German Peasants' War of 1524–1525, by 1530 large areas of Northern Europe were Protestant, and forms of nontrinitarianism began to surface among some "Radical Reformation" groups, particularly Anabaptists. The first recorded English antitrinitarian was John Assheton (1548). The Italian humanist "Council of Venice" (1550) and the trial of Michael Servetus (1553) marked the clear emergence of markedly anti-Trinitarian Protestants. Though the only organised nontrinitarian churches were the Polish Brethren who split from the Calvinists (1565, expelled from Poland 1658), and the Unitarian Church of Transylvania (1568-today). Nonconformists, Dissenters and Latitudinarians in Britain were often Arians or Unitarians, and the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed nontrinitarian worship in Britain. In America, Arian and Unitarian views were also found among some Millennialist and Adventist groups, though the Unitarian Church itself began to decline in numbers and influence after the 1870s.[55][56]
Points of dissent[edit]
Non-trinitarian Christians of Arian persuasion contend that the weight of Scriptural evidence leans more towards Subordinationism, that of the Son's total submission to the Father, and of Paternal supremacy over the Son in every aspect. They acknowledge and confess the Son's glorious and high rank, at God's right hand, but teach that the Father is still greater than the Son, in all things.
While acknowledging that the Father, Son, and Spirit are essential in creation and salvation, they argue that that in itself does not necessarily prove that they three are each co-equal or co-eternal. They also contend that the only number clearly ascribed to God in the Bible (both Testaments) is the number "one", and that the Trinity, literally meaning a set of three, ascribes a co-equal threeness to God that is not explicitly Scriptural.
Scriptural support[edit]
Critics argue that the Trinity, for a teaching described as fundamental, lacks direct scriptural support. Upholders of the doctrine declare that the doctrine is not stated directly in the New Testament, but is instead an interpretation of elements contained in it that are seen as implying the doctrine that was formulated only in the 4th century. Thus William Barclay says: "It is important and helpful to remember that the word Trinity is not itself a New Testament word. It is even true in at least one sense to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not directly New Testament doctrine. It is rather a deduction from and an interpretation of the thought and the language of the New Testament."[57] And the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]", "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century".[58]
Similarly, Encyclopedia Encarta states: "The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father. [...] The term trinitas was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of the debates on the nature of Christ [...]. In the 4th century, the doctrine was finally formulated".[59] Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). [...] The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. [...] by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."[60] The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: "One does not find in the NT the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity."[61]
Speaking of legitimate theological development, Joseph F. Kelly writes: "The Bible may not use the word 'Trinity', but it refers to God the Father frequently; the Gospel of John emphasized the divinity of the Son; several New Testament books treat the Holy Spirit as divine. The ancient theologians did not violate biblical teaching but sought to develop its implications. ... [Arius's] potent arguments forced other Christians to refine their thinking about the Trinity. at two ecumenical councils, Nicea I in 325 and Constantinople I in 381, the church at large defined the Trinity in the way now so familiar to us from the Nicene Creed. This exemplifies development of doctrine at its best. The Bible may not use the word 'Trinity', but trinitarian theology does not go against the Bible. On the contrary, Catholics believe that trinitarianism has carefully developed a biblical teaching for later generations."[2]
Questions over the alleged co-equal deity of Jesus[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2011)


 This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (March 2012)
Nontrinitarians[who?] say that there is no clear Scriptural backing for the doctrine of the co-equal divinity of Jesus. They point to verses that purport to demonstrate that Jesus himself explicitly stated that "the Father is greater" than he (John 14:28);[17] that he disavowed omniscience as the Son (John 8:28; in Mark 13:32), that he "learned obedience" (Hebrews 5:8); questioned being called even "good" in deference to God in the parable of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-17); they say that only the Father in Scripture is referred to as the "one God", and "out of (ex) whom all things are" (1 Corinthians 8:6); that Christ the Son is called the 'firstborn of all creation' (Colossians 1:15) and 'the beginning of God's creation' (Revelation 3:14); that Jesus referred to ascending to "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God" (John 20:17) and that he referred to his Father as "the only true God." (John 17:3)
Additionally, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 when saying in Mark 12:29 "'The most important [commandment] is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'" It has been stated[by whom?] that in the original Greek in Mark 12, there are no "plural modifiers" in that Greek word there for "one" (eis), but that in Mark 12 it is simply a masculine singular "one". And that because of that, there is no valid reason to believe that the Hebrew word for "one" in Deuteronomy 6 ("echad") was necessarily a "plural one", rather than just simply numerical "one".
They also argue to show that "Elohim" (sometimes translated "gods") does not hint at any form of plurality, but rather to majesty pointing to the Hebrew dialect and grammar rules that render this title in nearly all circumstances with a singular verb.[43]
With regard to the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic and Trinitarian, wrote that Mark 10:18, Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Ephesians 1:17, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:28, Mark 13:32, Philippians 2:5-10, and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject"; that Gal 2:20, Acts 20:28, John 1:18, Colossians 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 1John 5:20, Romans 9:5, and 2 Peter 1:1 are "texts where, by reason of textual variants or syntax, the use of 'God' for Jesus is dubious"; and that Hebrews 1:8-9, John 1:1, and John 20:28 are "texts where clearly Jesus is called God".[62]
Trinitarians (who hold that Jesus Christ is distinct from God the Father), and nontrinitarians who hold Jesus Christ as Almighty God (such as the Modalists), say that these statements are based on Jesus' existence as the Son of God in human flesh; that he is therefore both God and man, who became "lower than the angels, for our sake," (Hebrews 2:6-8) and that he was tempted as humans are tempted, but did not sin (Hebrews 4:14-16).
Some nontrinitarians counter the belief that the Son was limited only during his earthly life by citing "the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3), placing Jesus in an inferior position to the Father even after his resurrection and exaltation. They also cite Acts 5:31 and Philippians 2:9, indicating that Jesus became glorified and exalted after ascension to heaven, and to Hebrews 9:24, Acts 7:55, and 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, regarding Jesus as a distinct personality in heaven, still with a lesser position than the Father, all after Christ's ascension.
Views on allegedly Trinitarian passages in scripture[edit]
Non-trinitarian Christians such as Jehovah's Witnesses argue that a person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. They say it is noteworthy at the outset that the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity do not explicitly teach co-equality or co-eternity in any clear formulation, and also that most of those Verses in question actually mention only two persons, not three; so nontrinitarians say that even if the trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.[63]
John 1:1[edit]
Main article: John 1:1
John 1:1 - The contention with this verse is that there is a distinction between God and the Logos (or "the Word"). Trinitarians contend that the third part of the verse (John 1:1c) translates as "and the Word was God", pointing to a distinction as subjects between God and the Logos but an equivalence in nature.[64][65][66][67] Some non-trinitarians (Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically) contend that the Koine Greek ("kai theos ên ho logos") should instead be translated as "and the Word was a god", or as what they see as the more literal word-for-word translation from the Greek as "and a God was the Word", basing this on the contention that the section is an example of an anarthrous, that is, "theos" lacks the definite article, meaning its use was indefinite - "a god", which could denote either Almighty God or a divine being in general. Nontrinitarians also contend that had the author of John's gospel wished to say "and the Word was God" that he could have easily written "kai ho theos ên ho logos", but he did not. In this way, nontrinitarians contend that the Logos would be considered to be the pre-existent Jesus, who is actually distinct from God. The argument being that the distinction between the Logos and the Father was not just in terms of "person", but also in terms of "theos".[68][self-published source] [69][70] Meaning that not only were they distinct persons, but also distinct "Gods", given the fact that the second occurrence of "theos" was an indefinite noun; and that only the Father was treated as the absolute "Theos" in John 1:1. The argument being that only one person is actually referred to as the Absolute God, "ho Theos", in John 1:1, that person being only the Father, not the Logos.[68][self-published source][70] Alternatively, others argue that the Greek should be translated as "and the Logos was divine" (with theos being an adjective), and the Logos being interpreted as God's "plan" or "reasoning" for salvation. Thus, according to Modalists, when "the Logos became flesh" in John 1:14, it is not interpreted to be a pre-existent Jesus being incarnated, but rather the "plan" or "eternal mind" of God being manifested in the birth of the man Jesus. Others still consider a suitable translation of the verse to be "What God was, the logos/word was." [71]
John 10:30[edit]
John 10:30 - Nontrinitarians such as Arians believe that when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," he did not mean that they were actually "one substance", or "one God", or co-equal and co-eternal, but rather that, according to context, which was that of shepherding the sheep, he and the Father were "one" in pastoral work. The thought being a "unity of purpose" in saving the sheep. Arians also cite John 17:21 where Jesus prayed regarding his disciples: “That they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may be in us,” adding “that they may be one even as we are one.” They point out that Jesus used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these instances and assert that since Jesus did not expect for his followers to literally become "one" entity, or "one in substance", with each other, or with God, then it is said that Jesus also did not expect his hearers to think that he and God the Father were "one" entity either. Rather Arian nontrinitarians insist that the oneness meant in that context was a oneness in divine work, mission, love and purpose.
John 20:28-29[edit]
John 20:28-29 - "And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"". Since Thomas called Jesus God, Jesus's statement appears to endorse Thomas's assertion. Nontrinitarians typically respond that it is plausible that Thomas is addressing the Lord Jesus and then the Father. Another possible answer is that Jesus himself said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34) referring to Psalm 82:6-8. The word "gods" in verse 6 and "God" in verse 8 is the same Hebrew word "'elohim",[72] which means, "gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative",[73] and can also refer to powers and potentates, in general, or as "God, god, gods, rulers, judges or angels",[72] and as "divine ones, goddess, godlike one".[74]


 This paragraph possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2013)
The notion being that since Christ represented God the Father perfectly, and was given power and authority by the Father, therefore Christ was "God", over the circumstances, similar to how Moses was called "God" in Exodus 7:1, because Moses was given divine power, and was "Elohim" to the people, over the situation. And that therefore Jesus was a "God" to Thomas, or a powerful being in that situation, as a perfect reflection of the Father's divine power. But still not necessarily co-equal with the Father in everything, just as Moses wasn't. The first explanation is perhaps the most plausible, in that the Greek forms used in the text do not denote two descriptions of one personage, but two personages described separately. A nontrinitarian would link this witnessing of Thomas to Jesus's saying that, to paraphrase, "He who sees me, sees the Father", and would say that this text affirms the doctrine that Jesus is Lord but only God the Father is absolute deity, and hence the Lord of Jesus. Because "no one can come to the Father except through me (Jesus)", it is necessary however to call Jesus "Lord" (a requirement of belief in the New Testament), which is exactly what Thomas did when he believed.
2 Corinthians 13:14[edit]
2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the Holy Spirit be with all of you." It's been argued by Trinitarians that since, in this verse, all three "Father, Son, and Spirit" are mentioned together in Paul's prayer for Grace on all believers, and are obviously essential for salvation, that they must make up one triune Godhead, and must therefore be co-equal or co-eternal. Nontrinitarians such as Arians reply that they do not disagree that all three are necessary for salvation and grace, but nowhere in the passage is it explicitly said that all three are co-equal or co-eternal, or even have to be. They argue that it is simply a circular assumption that just because they are mentioned together and are important, that they must ipso facto make up one co-equal Godhead.[75]
They point to other verses in the Bible that mention God, Christ, and the "Holy Angels" together in important solemn situations and oaths, and argue that no one believes that therefore the "holy angels" must be part of a co-equal Godhead, simply because they're mentioned along with Christ or God. And nontrinitarians remark that, though some passages mention Father, Son, and Spirit together, nowhere do those verses say that the Father is still not supreme or above all.[citation needed]
Philippians 2:5-6[edit]
Philippians 2:5-6 - "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [or "which was also in Christ Jesus",] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (ESV). The word here translated in the English Standard Version as "a thing to be grasped" is ἁρπαγμόν. Other translations of the word are indicated in the Holman Christian Standard Bible: "Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage" [or "to be grasped", or "to be held on to"].[76] The King James Version has: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."[77] An Internet commentator criticizes the King James Version for conveying a thought basically opposite of what was actually said, and says the text means: "Let this mind be in you, which also was in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped after".[78]
Hebrews 9:14[edit]
Hebrews 9:14 - "How much more will the Blood of Christ, who through an eternal Spirit, offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works, that we may render sacred service to the living God?" Trinitarians and Athanasians have used this verse as a proof-text that since all three are mentioned together, and all are essential in the plan of salvation and atonement, that because of that, are each eternal God.[citation needed] Most nontrinitarians admit that the Holy Spirit had no beginning, but believe it is not an actual person like the Father is. Nontrinitarians also agree that all three are essential, but contend that it's obvious that God the Father is ultimate, and is the one who is ultimately reached, and therefore, although all are divine and essential, the "living God" the Father is still greater than the other two entities. And that a "co-equal trinity" is still not explicitly taught in the passage, but only inferred or assumed.[79]
Terminology[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)
Nontrinitarians state that the doctrine of the Trinity relies on non-Biblical terminology, that the term "Trinity" is not found in Scripture and that the number three is never clearly associated with God necessarily, other than within the Comma Johanneum which is of spurious or disputed authenticity. They argue that the only number clearly unambiguously ascribed to God in the Bible is one, and that the Trinity, literally meaning three-in-one, ascribes a co-equal threeness to God that is not explicitly biblical.
Nontrinitarians cite other examples of terms not found in the Bible; multiple "persons" in relation to God, the terms "God the Son", "God-Man", "God the Holy Spirit", "eternal Son", and "eternally begotten". While the Trinitarianism term hypostasis is found in the Bible, it is used only once in reference to God [Heb 1:3] where it states that Jesus is the express image of God's person. The Bible does not explicitly use the term in relation to the Holy Spirit nor explicitly mentions the Son having a distinct hypostasis from the Father.
All agree that the First Council of Nicaea included in its Creed the major term homoousios (of the same essence), which was used also by the Council of Chalcedon to speak of a double consubstantiality of Christ, "consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood".[80] Nontrinitarians accept what Pier Franco Beatrice wrote: "The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine's Hermetic background. [...] The Plato recalled by Constantine is just a name used to cover precisely the Egyptian and Hermetic theology of the "consubstantiality" of the Logos-Son with the Nous-Father, having recourse to a traditional apologetic argument. [...] Constantine's Hermetic interpretation of Plato's theology and consequently the emperor's decision to insert homoousios in the Creed of Nicaea."[81]
Trinitarians see the absence of the actual word "Trinity" and other Trinity-related terms in the Bible as no more significant than the absence in the Bible of the words "monotheism", "omnipotence", "oneness", "Pentecostal", "apostolic", "incarnation" and even "Bible" itself.[82][83] and maintain that, "while the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical".[2][57][84]
Holy Spirit[edit]
See also: Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations)
Nontrinitarian views about the Holy Spirit differ in certain ways from mainstream Christian doctrine and generally fall into several distinct categories. Most scriptures traditionally in support of the Trinity refer to the Father and the Son, but not to the Holy Spirit.
Unitarian and Arian[edit]
Groups with Unitarian theology such as Polish Socinians, the 18th-19th Century Unitarian Church, Christadelphians conceive of the Holy Spirit not as a person but an aspect of God's power.[85] Christadelphians believe that the phrase Holy Spirit refers to God's power or mind/character, depending on the context.[22]
Though Arius himself believed that the Holy Spirit is a person or high-ranking Angel, that had a beginning, modern Arian or Semi-Arian Christian groups such as Dawn Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses believe, the same as Unitarian groups, that the Holy Spirit is not an actual person but is God's "power in action", like God's divine "breath" or "energy", which had no beginning, that he uses to accomplish his will and purpose in creation, redemption, sanctification, and divine guidance, and they do not typically capitalize the term.[86] They define the Holy Spirit as "God's active force", and they believe that it proceeds only from the Father.[86] A Jehovah's Witness brochure quotes Alvan Lamson: "...the Father, Son, and... Holy Spirit [are] not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One... The very reverse is the fact."[87]
Binitarianism[edit]
Armstrongites, such as the Living Church of God, believe that the Logos and God the Father are co-equal and co-eternal, but they do not believe that the Holy Spirit is an actual person, like the Father and the Son. They believe the Holy Spirit is the Power, Mind, or Character of God, depending on the context. They teach, "The Holy Spirit is the very essence, the mind, life and power of God. It is not a Being. The Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe". Mainstream Christians characterise this teaching as the heresy of Binitarianism, the teaching that God is a "Duality", or "two-in-one", rather than three.[88]
Modalist groups[edit]
Oneness Pentecostalism, as with other modalist groups, teach that the Holy Spirit is a mode of God, rather than a distinct or separate person in the Godhead. They instead teach that the Holy Spirit is another name for God the Father. According to Oneness theology, the Holy Spirit essentially is the Father, operating in a certain capacity or manifestation. The United Pentecostal Church teaches that there is no personal distinction between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[89][90][91]
These two titles "Father" and "Holy Spirit" (as well as others) do not reflect separate "persons" within the Godhead, but rather two different ways in which the one God reveals himself to his creatures. Thus, the Old Testament speaks of "The Lord God and his Spirit" in Isaiah 48:16, but this does not indicate two "persons" according to Oneness theology. Rather, "The Lord" indicates God in all of His glory and transcendence, while the words "His Spirit" refer to God's own Spirit that moved upon and spoke to the prophet. The Oneness view is that this does not imply two "persons" any more than the numerous scriptural references to a man and his spirit or soul (such as in Luke 12:19) imply two "persons" existing within one body.[92]
Latter Day Saint movement[edit]
See also: Holy Spirit in Mormonism and God in Mormonism
In the Latter Day Saint movement, a collection of independent church groups that trace their origins to a Christian primitivist movement founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, the Holy Ghost (usually synonymous with Holy Spirit.)[93] is considered the third distinct member of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost),[94] and to have a body of "spirit,"[95] which makes him unlike the Father and the Son who are said to have bodies "as tangible as man's."[96] According to LDS doctrine, the Holy Spirit is believed to be a person,[96][97] with a body of spirit, able to pervade all worlds.[98]
Latter Day Saints believe that the Holy Spirit is part of the "Divine Council", but that the Father is greater than both the Son and the Holy Spirit.[98] According to official Latter-day Saint teaching, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct "Gods" joined in purpose as "one Godhead". Because of this, some view Latter-day Saint theology as a form of "tri-theism".
However, a number of Latter Day Saint sects, most notably the Community of Christ (second largest Latter Day Saint denomination) and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot),[99] and those sects separating from the Community of Christ and Church of Christ, follow a traditional Protestant trinitarian theology.
Judaism[edit]
The "holy spirit" (also transliterated ruah ha-qodesh) is a term used in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Jewish writings to refer to the Spirit of Yehowah. (The expression in Hebrew is: יהוה .קָדְשְׁך) The Hebrew term ruakh kodeshka, without the definite article, also occurs. The Holy Spirit in Judaism generally refers to the divine aspect of prophecy and wisdom. It also refers to the divine force, quality, and influence of the Most High God, over the universe or over his creatures, in given contexts.[100] It is not considered a separate person of God, but rather God's divine wisdom, breath, or moving power.
Other groups[edit]
The Unity Church interprets the religious terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit metaphysically, as three aspects of mind action: mind, idea, and expression. They believe this is the process through which all manifestation takes place.[101]
As a movement that developed out of Christianity, Rastafari has its own unique interpretation of both the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit. Although there are several slight variations, they generally state that it is Haile Selassie who embodies both God the Father and God the Son, while the Holy (or rather, "Hola") Spirit is to be found within Rasta believers (see 'I and I'), and within every human being. Rastas also say that the true church is the human body, and that it is this church (or "structure") that contains the Holy Spirit.
Inter-religious dialogue[edit]
The Trinity doctrine is integral in inter-religious disagreements with the other two main Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam; the former rejects Jesus' divine mission entirely, and the latter accepts Jesus as a human prophet and the Messiah but not as the son of God. The concept of a co-equal trinity is totally rejected, with Quranic verses calling the doctrine of the Trinity blasphemous.[102] Many[who?] within Judaism and Islam[citation needed] also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism—believing in three gods rather than just one.
Purported pagan origins[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)



 Horus, Osiris, and Isis


 The Trimurti: Brahmā, Vishnu, and Shiva


 Altar depicting a tricephalic god identified as Lugus.
Those who argue for a pagan basis note that as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common, and that this influence was also prevalent among the Celts, as well as in India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome.[citation needed] The ancient Egyptians arranged their gods and goddesses in groups of three, or trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, and the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis.
In ancient India, the concept of the trio—Brahma the creator, Shiva the destroyer, and Vishnu the preserver dates back to millennia before Christ.[103][104] This triad of 3 gods is regarded as Trimurti, meaning 'tri' = three and 'murti' = figure, manifestation. A number of triads can be found in Hindu scriptures such as Vedas, Upanishads, among others.[105]
Some nontrinitarians[who?] also say that a link between the doctrine of the Trinity and the Egyptian Christian theologians of Alexandria suggests that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Jesus, served to infuse Egypt's pagan religious heritage into Christianity. They charge the Church with adopting these Egyptian tenets after adapting them to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy.[106]
They say that there was much pagan Greek and Platonic influence in the development of the idea of a co-equal triune Godhead, many basic concepts from Aristotelian philosophy being mixed and incorporated into the Biblical God. As one piece of evidence, they say that Aristotle himself wrote: "All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity."[107][108]
The words thus attributed to Aristotle differ in a number of ways from what has been published as the philosopher's original text in Greek,[109][110][111] which for instance has nothing corresponding to "let us use this number in the worship of the gods" before the mention of the Pythagoreans. They differ also from translations of the works of Aristotle by scholars such as Stuart Leggatt, W. K. C. Guthrie, J. L. Stocks, Thomas Taylor and Jules Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire. The independent but concordant translations by Guthrie and Stocks of what Aristotle, in his On the Heavens, wrote about what he considered to be the only three dimensions are considered "good English translations",[112] and a comparison with them of the words above attributed to Aristotle shows how the latter diverges.
The Guthrie translation is: "Magnitude divisible in one direction is a line, in two directions is a surface, and in three directions is a body. There is no magnitude not included in these; for three are all, and 'in three directions' is the same as 'in every direction'. It is just as the Pythagoreans say, the whole world and all things in it are summed up in the number three; for end, middle, and beginning give the number of the whole, and their number is the triad. Hence it is that we have taken this number from nature, as if it were her laws, and we make use of it even for the worship of the gods."[113]
The Stocks translation is: "A magnitude if divisible one way is a line, if two ways a surface, and if three a body. Beyond these there is no other magnitude, because the three dimensions are all that there are, and that which is divisible in three directions is divisible in all. For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the triad. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the gods."[114]
Some anti-Trinitarians note also that the Greek philosopher Plato believed in a special "threeness" in life and in the universe. In Plato's work Phaedo, he introduces the word "triad" (in Greek τριάς),[115] which they translate as "trinity". Plato believed and taught that the Ultimate Reality was a "trinity of divine forms", of the One, Nous, Psyche.[citation needed] This was adopted by 3rd and 4th century professed Christians as roughly corresponding to "Father, Word, and Spirit (Soul)".[116] Non-trinitarian Christians contend that such notions and adoptions make the Trinity doctrine more suspect, as not being Biblical, but extra-Biblical in concept.
As evidence of this, they say there is a widely acknowledged synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy evident in Trinitarian formulas appearing by the end of the 3rd century. Hence, beginning with the Constantinian period, they allege, these pagan ideas were forcibly imposed on the churches as Catholic doctrine rooted firmly in the soil of Hellenism. Most groups subscribing to the theory of a Great Apostasy generally concur in this thesis.
The early apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, frequently discussed the parallels and contrasts between Christianity, Paganism and other syncretic religions, and answered charges of borrowing from paganism in their apologetical writings.
Hellenic influences[edit]
See also: Hellenization
Advocates of the "Hellenic influences" argument attempt to trace the influence of Greek philosophers, such as Plato or Aristotle, who, they say, taught an essential "threeness" of the Ultimate Reality, and also the concept of "eternal derivation", that is, "a birth without a becoming". They say that theologians of the 4th century A.D., such as Athanasius of Alexandria, then interpreted the Bible through a Middle Platonist and later Neoplatonist filter.
The argument is that many of these 3rd and 4th-century Christians mixed Greek pagan philosophy with the Scriptures, incorporating Platonism into their concept of the Biblical God and the Biblical Christ. These advocates point to what they see as similarities between Hellenistic philosophy and post-Apostolic Christianity, by examining the following factors:
##Stuart G Hall (formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London) describes the subsequent process of philosophical/theological amalgamation in Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (1991), where he writes:

"The [Christian] apologists [such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus] began to claim that Greek culture pointed to and was consummated in the Christian message, just as the Old Testament was. This process was done most thoroughly in the synthesis of Clement of Alexandria. It can be done in several ways. You can rake through Greek literature, and find (especially in the oldest seers and poets) references to ‘God’ which are more compatible with monotheism than with polytheism (so at length Athenagoras.) You can work out a common chronology between the legends of prehistoric (Homer) Greece and the biblical record (so Theophilus.) You can adapt a piece of pre-Christian Jewish apologetic, which claimed that Plato and other Greek philosophers got their best ideas indirectly from the teachings of Moses in the Bible, which was much earlier. This theory combines the advantage of making out the Greeks to be plagiarists (and therefore second-rate or criminal), while claiming that they support Christianity by their arguments at least some of the time. Especially this applied to the question of God."
##The neo-Platonic trinities, such as that of the One, the Nous and the Soul, are not considered a trinity necessarily of consubstantial equals as in mainstream Christianity. However, the neo-Platonic trinity has the doctrine of emanation, or "eternal derivation", a timeless procedure of generation having as a source the One and claimed to be paralleled with the generation of the light from the Sun. This was adopted by Origen and later on by Athanasius, and applied to the generation of the Son from the Father, because they believed that this analogy could be used to support the notion that the Father, as immutable, always had been a Father, and that the generation of the Son is therefore eternal and timeless.[117]
##The synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy was further incorporated in the trinitarian formulas that appeared by the end of the 3rd century. "The Greek philosophical theology" was "developed during the Trinitarian controversies over the relationships among the persons of the Godhead."[118] Some assert that this incorporation was well known during the 3rd century, because the allegation of borrowing was raised by some disputants when the Nicene doctrine was being formalized and adopted by the bishops. For example, in the 4th century, Marcellus of Ancyra, who taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person (hypostasis), said in his On the Holy Church, 9:
"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato."[119]

Christian groups[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011)
##American Unitarian Conference
##Arianism
##Assemblies of Yahweh
##Bible Students
##Christadelphians
##Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[120][121]
##The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
##Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
##Doukhobors
##Friends of Man
##Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
##Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
##Jehovah's Witnesses
##Members Church of God International
##Molokan
##Monarchianism
##Muggletonianism
 ##New Church
##Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
##Oneness Pentecostals
##Polish Brethren
##Some Quakers
##Shakers
##Socinianism
##Swedenborgianism
##The Way International
##Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[122]
##Unification Church
##Unitarian Christians
##Unitarian Universalism
##United Church of God
##Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
##Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua

People[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011)
##Sabellius, ~220 (Modalist: the eponymous heresiarch of Sabellianism, or "monarchic modalism")
##Origen c. 230 (Ante-Nicene Father, subordinationist: considered the Son co-eternal with God, subject to the Father's will, but not inferior in essence)[123]
##Paul of Samosata, 269
##Arius, 336, bishop and presbyter of Alexandria, major theologian of doctrine in 4th century, Arianism. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, which emphasized the Father's divinity over the Son,[124] and his opposition to co-equal or Athanasian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicea, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 325.
##Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, baptized Roman Emperor Constantine the Great
##Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
##Antipope Felix II, 365
##Aëtius, 367
##Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
##Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
##Muhammad, 632, see also Islamic view of Jesus, tawhid
##Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
##Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin
##Sebastian Castellio, 1563
##Ferenc Dávid, 1579
##Justus Velsius, c. 1581
##Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
##John Biddle, 1662
##John Milton (poet), c. 1674[citation needed]
##Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy in Britain
##John Locke, 1704[125]
##Isaac Newton did not believe in Trinitarianism as documented in a letter to a friend, now preserved in The New College Library in Oxford, UK, Manuscript 361(4), Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 1: ff. 1-41).[125] He listed "worshipping Christ as God" in a list of "Idolatria" in his theological notebook.[126] However, he never made a public declaration of his anti-trinitarian beliefs for fear of losing his position.[127]
 ##William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710 for Arianism; famous for translating Josephus
##Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
##Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772, eponymous founder of Swedenborgianism.
##Benjamin Franklin, 1790, Deist[citation needed]
##Joseph Priestley, 1804
##Joseph Smith, 1805, monolatrist, founder of the Latter-day Saint movement (Mormonism)
##Thomas Paine, 1809[citation needed]
##Mary Baker Eddy, 1821, founder of Christian Science
##Thomas Jefferson, 1826, Deist[citation needed]
##James Madison, 1836, Deist[citation needed]
##William Ellery Channing, 1842
##Robert Hibbert, 1849
##John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
##Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
##Robert Roberts (Christadelphian), 1898
##Benjamin Wilson, 1900
##James Martineau, 1900
##Félix Manalo, 1914
##Charles Taze Russell, 1916, founder of the Bible Student movement and Jehovah's Witnesses, author of Millennial Dawn
##Eliseo Soriano, 1947
##William Branham, 1965
##Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, a Sabbatarian Christian Church, and was an advocate of the doctrine of Binitarianism.

See also[edit]
##Bibliotheca antitrinitariorum
##Consubstantiality
##Servetism
##Subordinationism
##Tawhid
##Unitarianism
##Urantia Foundation
##John 1:1
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ The Trinity. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
2.^ Jump up to: a b c An Introduction to the New Testament for Catholics. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
3.Jump up ^ The Story of Christian Theology. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
4.Jump up ^ A Short History of Christian Doctrine. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
5.Jump up ^ Constantinople and the West. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
6.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
7.Jump up ^ "Theodosius I". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
8.Jump up ^ http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
9.Jump up ^ "Albigensian Crusade". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
10.Jump up ^ http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=938690
11.Jump up ^ von Harnack, Adolf (1894-03-01). "History of Dogma". Retrieved 2007-06-15. "[In the 2nd century,] Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptionist Christology); or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology)"
12.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Present Day, Prince Press, 1984, Vol. 1, pp. 159-161• Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, The University of Chicago Press, 1971, Vol. 1, pp. 181-199
13.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica 1942 edition p.634 "Christianity"
14.Jump up ^ "HISTORY OF ARIANISM". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
15.^ Jump up to: a b David K. Bernard, Oneness and Trinity A.D. 100-300 - The Doctrine of God and Ancient Christian Writings - Word Aflame Press, Hazelwood Montana, 1991, p. 156.
16.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Protestantism, page 474, J. Gordon Melton, 2005: "... for his many departures from traditional Christian and Protestant affirmations including the Trinity and the deity of Christ. ... 1 (1886; reprint , Rutherford, NJ: Dawn Bible Students Association, nd)"
17.^ Jump up to: a b Watch Tower, October 1881, Watch Tower Reprints page 290 As Retrieved 2009-09-23, page 4, ""He gave his only begotten Son." This phraseology brings us into conflict with an old Babylonian theory, viz.: Trinitarianism. If that doctrine is true, how could there be any Son to give? A begotten Son, too? Impossible. If these three are one, did God send himself? And how could Jesus say: "My Father is greater than I." John 14:28. [emphasis retained from original]"
18.Jump up ^ Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, July 1882, Reprints 370, page 3.
19.Jump up ^ Flint, James; Deb Flint. One God or a Trinity?. Hyderabad: Printland Publishers. ISBN 81-87409-61-4.
20.Jump up ^ Pearce, Fred. Jesus: God the Son or Son of God? Does the Bible Teach the Trinity?. Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association Ltd (UK). p. 8.
21.Jump up ^ Tennant, Harry. The Holy Spirit: Bible Understanding of God's Power. Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association Ltd (UK).
22.^ Jump up to: a b Broughton, James H.; Peter J Southgate. The Trinity: True or False?. UK: The Dawn Book Supply.
23.Jump up ^ Nelson's guide to denominations J. Gordon Melton - 2007 "Later in the century, various leaders also began to express doubts about the Trinity, and a spectrum of opinion emerged. ... Still others, such as the Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith) specifically denied the Trinity ..."
24.Jump up ^ Manalo, Eraño G., Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) (Iglesia ni Cristo; Manila 1989)
25.Jump up ^ The Watchtower: 23. January 15, 1992. Missing or empty |title= (help)
26.Jump up ^ Insight on the Scriptures 2. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 1988. pp. 393–394.
27.Jump up ^ Should You Believe in the Trinity?. Watch Tower Society. p. 20.
28.Jump up ^ Holland, Jeffrey R. "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent". Retrieved 29 November 2013.
29.^ Jump up to: a b "Arianism". Southern Grace Church. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
30.^ Jump up to: a b c "Arianism". New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
31.^ Jump up to: a b "What is Arianism?". Unity in the Body of Christ. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
32.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ: Firstborn in the Spirit". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
33.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ: Overview". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
34.^ Jump up to: a b "Arianism". Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
35.Jump up ^ "Are Mormons Arians?". Retrieved 29 November 2013.
36.Jump up ^ "God the Father: Overview". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
37.Jump up ^ "First Vision". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
38.Jump up ^ "What is Arianism?". The Arian Catholic Church. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
39.Jump up ^ "'The Glory of God Is Intelligence' - Lesson 37: Section 93", Doctrine and Covenants Instructor's Guide: Religion 324-325 (PDF), Institutes of Religion, Church Educational System, 1981, pp. 73–74, archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-11-12
40.Jump up ^ "The Oneness of God". Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
41.Jump up ^ Patrick Zukeran - Judaism - Judaism Today. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
42.Jump up ^ The Trinity and Deity of Jesus: What the Bible Really Teaches - Retrieved 21 June 2013.
43.^ Jump up to: a b TRINITY: Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
44.Jump up ^ Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians
45.Jump up ^ "In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment." - Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians. Athanasius (23 January 2010). "Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians". Fourth Century Christianity. Wisconsin Lutheran College. Retrieved 2 May 2012.
46.Jump up ^ Getting to Know the Church Fathers. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
47.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Barbarian Europe. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
48.Jump up ^ Early Controversies and the Growth of Christianity. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
49.Jump up ^ "NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
50.Jump up ^ Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (Random House, 2003), n.p.
51.Jump up ^ "NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters". Ccel.org. 13 July 2005. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
52.Jump up ^ David Bernard's The Oneness of God, Word Aflame Press, 1983, ISBN 0-912315-12-1. pgs 264-274.
53.Jump up ^ Wells, H. G. (n.d.). The Outline of History: being a plain history of life and mankind. Forgotten Books 2. London, UK: The Waverley Book Company. p. 284.
54.Jump up ^ W. Fulton, ”Trinity”, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, T. & T. Clark, 1921, Vol. 12, p. 459.
55.Jump up ^ Unitarians face a new age: the report of the Commission of Appraisal. American Unitarian Association. ed. Frederick May Eliot, Harlan Paul Douglass - 1936 "Chapter III CHURCH GROWTH AND DECLINE DURING THE LAST DECADE Year Book data permit the calculation of growth or decline in membership for 297 Unitarian churches which existed throughout the last decade and ..."
56.Jump up ^ Charles Lippy Faith in America: Changes, Challenges, New Directions p2 2006 "However, when the national interest in novel religious forms waned by the mid- nineteenth century, Unitarianism and Universalism began to decline.2 For the vast majority of religious bodies in America, growth continued unabated;"
57.^ Jump up to: a b The Apostles' Creed. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
58.Jump up ^ New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Volume XIV p.299
59.Jump up ^ John Macquarrie, "Trinity," Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved on March 31, 2008.
60.Jump up ^ "Trinity," Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. Retrieved on March 31, 2008.
61.Jump up ^ Jouette M. Bassler, "God in the NT", The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Doubleday, New York 1992, 2:1055.
62.Jump up ^ "Theological Studies" (PDF). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
63.Jump up ^ Reasoning from Scriptures, Watch Tower bible and tract society page 411 para 4
64.Jump up ^ The Gospel According to John. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
65.Jump up ^ John (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
66.Jump up ^ Earl Radmacher, Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson Inc. 1999) ISBN 978-1-4185-8734-5
67.Jump up ^ Commentary on John (Commentary on the New Testament Book #4). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
68.^ Jump up to: a b Patrick Navas - Divine Truth Or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration Of The Orthodox Doctrine Of The Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures - AuthorHouse, 2007, 2011 - p 267.
69.Jump up ^ JOHN 1:1c: "God," "divine" or "a god" ? - onlytrugod.org. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
70.^ Jump up to: a b Kaiser, Dr. Christopher B., The Doctrine of God, A Historical Survey - Foundations For Faith - Westchester: Crossway Books, 1982, p. 31.
71.Jump up ^ The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press. 2005. ISBN 9780737501117.
72.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Linguistic/HL/1-A/-elohiym.htm
73.Jump up ^ "Strong's Hebrew: 430. אֱלֹהִים (elohim) -- God, god". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
74.Jump up ^ http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430
75.Jump up ^ "2 Corinthians 13:14 – Trinity? - The Son of Jehovah". The Son of Jehovah. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
76.Jump up ^ Philippians 2:5-6
77.Jump up ^ Philippians 2:5-6
78.Jump up ^ "ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION NO. 4 - ROBBERY - Going to Jesus.com". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
79.Jump up ^ Is God a Trinity?. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
80.Jump up ^ "The Chalcedonian Definition". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
81.Jump up ^ The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity, by P.F. Beatrice, Church History, Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church History, Vol. 71, No. 2, (Jun., 2002), pp. 243-272. (retrieved @ noemon.net)[dead link]
82.Jump up ^ "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible". CARM - The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
83.Jump up ^ The Voice... Retrieved 5 March 2015.
84.Jump up ^ "Institute for Religious Research - The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity - Introduction". Institute for Religious Research. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
85.Jump up ^ The Unitarian: a monthly magazine of liberal Christianity ed. Jabez Thomas Sunderland, Brooke Herford, Frederick B. Mott - 1893 "We believe in the Holy Spirit, man's sole reliance for guidance, safety, or salvation, not as a separate person, entity, reality, or consciousness, existent apart from man or God, but as the recognizing sympathetic inter-communication in love between God and the human soul, the direct converse or communion of man's consciousness with Deity."
86.^ Jump up to: a b "Is the Holy Spirit a Person?". Awake!: 14–15. July 2006. "In the Bible, God’s Holy Spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s active force.”"
87.Jump up ^ "Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?", Should You Believe in the Trinity?, ©1989 Watch Tower, p. 7.
88.Jump up ^ Who and What Is God? - Mystery of the Ages - Herbert W. Armstrong. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
89.Jump up ^ Peter Althouse Spirit of the last days: Pentecostal eschatology in conversation p12 2003 "The Oneness Pentecostal stream follows in the steps of the Reformed stream, but has a modalistic view of the Godhead"
90.Jump up ^ See under heading "The Father is the Holy Ghost" in David Bernard, The Oneness of God, Chapter 6.
91.Jump up ^ See also David Bernard, A Handbook of Basic Doctrines, Word Aflame Press, 1988.
92.Jump up ^ See under "The Lord God and His Spirit," in Chapter 7 of David Bernard, The Oneness of God.
93.Jump up ^ Wilson, Jerry A. (1992). "Holy Spirit". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Mcmillan. p. 651. ISBN 0-02-904040-X. "The Holy Spirit is a term often used to refer to the Holy Ghost. In such cases the Holy Spirit is a personage.""
94.Jump up ^ McConkie, Joseph Fielding (1992). "Holy Ghost". In Ludlow editor-first= Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Mcmillan. p. 649. ISBN 0-02-904040-X.
95.Jump up ^ D&C 131:7-8 ("There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.")
96.^ Jump up to: a b D&C 130:22.
97.Jump up ^ Romney, Marion G. (May 1974), "The Holy Ghost", Ensign
98.^ Jump up to: a b Millennial Star XII. October 15, 1850. pp. 305–309. Retrieved March 30, 2011.
99.Jump up ^ "Basic Beliefs Articles of Faith and Practice". Church of Christ. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
100.Jump up ^ Alan Unterman and Rivka Horowitz,Ruah ha-Kodesh, Encyclopedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Judaica Multimedia/Keter, 1997).
101.Jump up ^ http://www.unitypaloalto.org/beliefs/twenty_questions.html[dead link]
102.Jump up ^ The Holy Qur'an. 4:171.
103.Jump up ^ HINDU TRINITY Lord Brahma | Lord Vishnu | Lord Shiva - Rudra Centre - Retrieved 26 March 2014
104.Jump up ^ E. Washburn Hopkins - ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF RELIGION - THE HINDU TRINITY - urantia-book.org. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
105.Jump up ^ Rudolf V. D'Souza (1996). The Bhagavadgītā and St. John of the Cross: A Comparative Study of the Dynamism of Spiritual Growth in the Process of God-realisation. Gregorian Biblical. p. 340.
106.Jump up ^ 'At times he forms one of a trinity in unity, with Ra and Osiris, as in Fig. 87, a god with the two sceptres of Osiris, the hawk's head of Horus, and the sun of Ra. This is the god described to Eusebius, who tells us that when the oracle was consulted about the divine nature, by those who wished to understand this complicated mythology, it had answered, "I am Apollo and Lord and Bacchus," or, to use the Egyptian names, "I am Ra and Horus and Osiris." Another god, in the form of a porcelain idol to be worn as a charm, shows us Horus as one of a trinity in unity, in name, at least, agreeing with that afterwards adopted by the Christians--namely, the Great God, the Son God, and the Spirit God.'—Samuel Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity, 1863, pp. 89-90.
107.Jump up ^ "How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity". United Church of God. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
108.Jump up ^ Michael Barber - Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity? - Universal-Publishers, Nov 1, 2006 - Part Three - Page 78.
109.Jump up ^ "Περί Ουρανού/1". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
110.Jump up ^ "ARISTOTE : Traité du Ciel (livre I - texte grec)". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
111.Jump up ^ Bekker edition of Aristotle's works, volume II, p. 211
112.Jump up ^ The Philosophical Review, Vol. 108, No. 2 (April 1999), p. 285
113.Jump up ^ Plato's Magnesia and Philosophical Polities in Magna Graecia. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
114.Jump up ^ "The Internet Classics Archive - On the Heavens by Aristotle". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
115.Jump up ^ Phaedo (Second Edition). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
116.Jump up ^ Course of Ideas, pp 387-8.
117.Jump up ^ Select Treatises of St. Athanasius - In Controversy With the Arians - Freely Translated by John Henry Cardinal Newmann - Longmans, Green, and Co., 1911
118.Jump up ^ A. Hilary Armstrong, Henry J. Blumenthal, Platonism. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.
119.Jump up ^ Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95
120.Jump up ^ Neusner, Jacob, ed. 2009. World Religions in America: An Introduction, Fourth Ed. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 257. ISBN 978-0-664-23320-4
121.Jump up ^ Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. 1998. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects and Cults, Revised Ed. New York, New York: Rosen Publishing Group, p. 73. ISBN 0-8239-2586-2
122.Jump up ^ Walker, James K. (2007). The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers. pp. 117–118. ISBN 978-0-7369-2011-7
123.Jump up ^ Whether Origen taught a doctrine of God that was or was not reconcilable with later Nicene Christianity is a matter of debate (Cf. ANF Vol 4), although many of his other views, such as on metempsychosis, were rejected. Origen was an economic subordinationist according to the editors of ANF, believing in the co-eternal aspect of God the Son but asserting that God the Son never commanded the Father, and only obeyed. This view is compatible with Nicene theology (as it is not held by Nicene Christians that the Son or Holy Spirit can command the Father), notwithstanding any other doctrines Origen held.
124.Jump up ^ Williams, Rowan (2002) [1987]. Arius (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 98. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5.
125.^ Jump up to: a b Avery Cardinal Dulles. The Deist Minimum. 2005.
126.Jump up ^ Pfizenmaier, T.C., "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?" Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997.
127.Jump up ^ Snobelen, Stephen D. (1999). "Isaac Newton, heretic : the strategies of a Nicodemite" (PDF). British Journal for the History of Science 32 (4): 381–419. doi:10.1017/S0007087499003751.
Further reading[edit]
##Tuggy, Dale (Summer 2014), "History of Trinitarian Doctrines", Trinity, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
External links[edit]


 This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (June 2012)
##Five Major Problems With The Trinity 21st Century Reformation by Dan J. Gill
##The Trinity: True or False? by James H. Broughton & Peter J Southgate
##The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
##An investigation of the trinity of Plato and of Philo Judaeus, and of the effects which an attachment to their writings had upon the principles and reasonings of the father of the Christian church, by Caesar Morgan, Cambridge University Press, 1853.
##Antitrinitarian Biography; or, Sketches of the lives and writings of distinguished antitrinitarians, exhibiting a view of the state of the Unitarian doctrine and worship in the principal nations of Europe, from the reformation to the close of the seventeenth century, to which is prefixed a history of Unitarianism in England during the same period, Robert Wallace, 1850.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity


Jesus
Christ ·
 Jesus in Christianity ·
 Virgin birth ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection ·
 Son of God
 
Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.


Foundations
Church ·
 Creed ·
 Gospel ·
 New Covenant
 

Bible
Books ·
 Canon ·
 Old Testament ·
 New Testament
 

Theology
God  (Father ·
 Son ·
 Holy Spirit)
   ·
 Apologetics ·
 Baptism ·
 Catholicism ·
 Christology ·
 History of theology ·
 Mission ·
 Salvation ·
 Trinity
 


History and
tradition

Apostles ·
 Mary ·
 Peter ·
 Paul ·
 Fathers ·
 Early ·
 Constantine ·
 Ecumenical councils ·
 Augustine ·
 East–West Schism ·
 Crusades ·
 Aquinas ·
 Protestant Reformation ·
 Luther
 


Denominations
 and movements
 (List)



Western

Adventist ·
 Anabaptists ·
 Anglican ·
 Baptists ·
 Calvinist ·
 Charismatic ·
 Evangelical ·
 Holiness ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Pentecostal ·
 Protestant ·
 Roman Catholic
 


Eastern

Eastern Orthodox ·
 Eastern Catholic ·
 Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) ·
 Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian)
 


Nontrinitarian

Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Oneness Pentecostalism
 


Related topics
Art ·
 Criticism ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Liturgy ·
 Music ·
 Other religions ·
 Prayer ·
 Sermon ·
 Symbolism
 

CategoryCategory ·
 Portal icon Christianity portal ·
 WikiProjectWikiProject
 

  


Categories: Nontrinitarianism
Christianity-related controversies
Unitarianism
Schisms in Christianity
Christian terminology




































Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Kiswahili
Lietuvių
മലയാളം
Nederlands
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 30 April 2015, at 20:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism









Nontrinitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd


Jesus ·
 Christ
 [show]








Bible ·
 Foundations
 [show]










Theology[show]

















History ·
 Tradition
 [show]
















Related topics[show]














Denominations ·
 Groups
 [show]






























Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Nontrinitarianism (or antitrinitarianism) refers to monotheistic belief systems, primarily within Christianity, which reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity, namely, the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are co-eternal, co-equal, and indivisibly united in one being or ousia.
According to churches that consider ecumenical council decisions final, trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils,[1][2][3] that of the First Council of Nicaea (325), which declared the full divinity of the Son,[4] and the First Council of Constantinople (381), which declared the divinity of the Holy Spirit.[5]
Some councils later than that of Nicaea but earlier than that of Constantinople, such as the Council of Rimini (359), which has been described as "the crowning victory of Arianism",[6] disagreed with the Trinitarian formula of the Council of Nicaea. Nontrinitarians disagree with the findings of the Trinitarian Councils for various reasons, including the belief that the writings of the Bible take precedence over creeds (a view shared by the mainline Protestant churches, which on the contrary uphold the doctrine of the Trinity) or that there was a Great Apostasy prior to the Council. Church and State in Europe and the Middle East suppressed nontrinitarian belief as heresy from the 4th to 18th century, notably with regard to Arianism,[7][8] Catharism,[9] and the teaching of Michael Servetus.[10] Today nontrinitarians represent a minority of professed Christians.
Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism, and Subordinationism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in A.D. 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.[11] Nontrinitarianism was later renewed in the Gnosticism of the Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries, in the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, and in some groups arising during the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century.
Modern nontrinitarian Christian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International and the United Church of God.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not present in the other major Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam.


Contents  [hide]
1 Christianity 1.1 Modern Christian groupings
1.2 Unitarian Universalism
2 Judaism
3 Islam
4 History 4.1 Early Christianity
4.2 Following the Reformation
5 Points of dissent 5.1 Scriptural support
5.2 Questions over the alleged co-equal deity of Jesus 5.2.1 Views on allegedly Trinitarian passages in scripture 5.2.1.1 John 1:1
5.2.1.2 John 10:30
5.2.1.3 John 20:28-29
5.2.1.4 2 Corinthians 13:14
5.2.1.5 Philippians 2:5-6
5.2.1.6 Hebrews 9:14

5.3 Terminology
5.4 Holy Spirit 5.4.1 Unitarian and Arian
5.4.2 Binitarianism
5.4.3 Modalist groups
5.4.4 Latter Day Saint movement
5.4.5 Judaism
5.4.6 Other groups
5.5 Inter-religious dialogue
6 Purported pagan origins 6.1 Hellenic influences
7 Christian groups
8 People
9 See also
10 Notes
11 Further reading
12 External links

Christianity[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2014)
The Christian Apologists and other Church Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, having adopted and formulated the Logos Christology, considered the Son of God as the instrument used by the supreme God, the Father, to bring the creation into existence. Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus of Rome and Tertullian in particular state that the internal Logos of God (Gr. Logos endiathetos, Lat. ratio), that is his impersonal divine reason, was begotten as Logos uttered (Gr. Logos proforikos, Lat. sermo, verbum) and thus became a person to be used for the purpose of creation.[12]
The Encyclopædia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine."[13] Although the nontrinitarian view eventually disappeared in the early Church and the Trinitarian view became an orthodox doctrine of modern Christianity, variations of the nontrinitarian view are still held by a small number of Christian groups and denominations.
Various views exist regarding the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
##Those who follow the life and teaching of Jesus but consider the question of divinity to be completely inconsequential and a distraction to the message that Jesus taught.[citation needed]
##Those who believe that Jesus is not God, nor absolutely equal to God, but was either God's subordinate Son, a messenger from God, or prophet, or the perfect created human. ##Adoptionism (2nd century A.D.) holds that Jesus became divine at his baptism (sometimes associated with the Gospel of Mark) or at his resurrection (sometimes associated with Saint Paul and Shepherd of Hermas).
##Arianism – Arius (A.D. c. 250 or 256 - 336) believed that the pre-existent Son of God was directly created by the Father, that he was subordinate to God the Father, and that only the Father was without beginning or end, but that the Son was also divine[citation needed]. Arius' position was that the Son was brought forth as the very first of God's creations, and that the Father later created all things through the Son. Arius taught that in the creation of the universe, the Father was the ultimate Creator, supplying all the materials, directing the design, while the Son worked the materials, making all things at the bidding and in the service of the Father, by which "through [Christ] all things came into existence". Arianism became the dominant view in some regions in the time of the Roman Empire, notably the Visigoths until 589.[14]
##Psilanthropism – Ebionites (1st to 4th century A.D.) denied the virgin birth and believed the Son to be nothing more than a special human.
##Socinianism – Photinus taught that Jesus, though perfect and sinless, and who was Messiah and Redeemer, was only the perfect human Son of God, and had no pre-human existence prior to the virgin birth. They take verses such as John 1:1 as simply God's "plan" existing in the Mind of God, before Christ's birth.
##Many Gnostic traditions held that the Christ is a heavenly Aeon but not one with the Father.
##Those who believe that the heavenly Father, the resurrected Son and the Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons. ##Modalism – Sabellius (fl. c. 215) stated that God has taken numerous forms in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures, and that God has manifested himself in three primary modes in regards to the salvation of mankind. His contention is that "Father, Son, and Spirit" were simply different roles played by the same Divine Person in various circumstances in history.[15] Thus God is Father in creation (God created a Son through the virgin birth), Son in redemption (God manifested himself into the begotten man Christ Jesus for the purpose of his death upon the cross), and Holy Spirit in regeneration (God's indwelling Spirit within the Son and within the souls of Christian believers). In light of this view, God is not three distinct persons, but rather one Person manifesting himself in multiple ways.[15] Trinitarians condemn this view as a heresy. The chief critic of Sabellianism was Tertullian, who labeled the movement "Patripassianism", from the Latin words pater for "father", and passus from the verb "to suffer" because it implied that the Father suffered on the Cross. It was coined by Tertullian in his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I, "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."
##Those who believe that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are actually three distinct almighty "Gods" with distinct natures, acting as one Divine Group, united in purpose. ##Tri-theism – John Philoponus, an Aristotelian and monophysite in Alexandria, in the middle of the 6th century, saw in the Trinity three separate natures, substances and deities, according to the number of divine persons. He sought to justify this view by the Aristotelian categories of genus, species and individuum. In the Middle Ages, Roscellin of Compiegne, the founder of Nominalism, argued for three distinct almighty Gods, with three distinct natures, who were one in purpose, acting together as one divine Group or Godhead. He said, though, like Philoponus, that unless the Three Persons are tres res (three things with distinct natures), the whole Trinity must have been incarnate. And therefore, since only the Logos was made flesh, the other two Persons must have had distinct "natures", separate from the Logos, and so had to be separate and distinct Gods, though all three were one in divine work and plan. Thus in light of this view, they would be considered "three Gods in one". This notion was condemned by St. Anselm.
##Those who believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person. ##Binitarianism – people through history who believed that God is only two co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father and the Word, not three. They taught that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person, but is the power or divine influence of the Father and Son, emanating out to the universe, in creation, and to believers.
##Dualism
##Marcionism – Marcion (A.D. c. 110-160) believed that there were two deities, one of creation and judgment (in the Hebrew Bible) and one of redemption and mercy (in the New Testament).
##Other concepts ##Docetism comes from the Greek: δοκέω (dokeo), meaning "to seem." This view holds that Jesus only seemed to be human and only appeared to die.

Modern Christian groupings[edit]
##American Unitarian Conference started as a reply to Unitarian Universalism becoming 'too theologically liberal'. They refrain from social activism and believe religion and science can improve the human condition. They have a deist population.[citation needed]
##Associated Bible Students believe that the Father is greater than the Son in all ways, and that the Trinity doctrine is unscriptural. They hold to beliefs similar to Jehovah's Witnesses.[16][17][18]


##Christadelphians hold that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, the Father, and that Jesus was an actual human[19] (and needed to be so in order to save humans from their sins[20]). The "holy spirit" terminology in the Bible is explained as referring to God's power,[21] or God's character/mind[22] (depending on the context).
##Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith).[23]
##Cooneyites are a non-Trinitarian Christian sect who split off from the Two by Twos sect in 1928 following Edward Cooney's excommunication from the main group. Cooneyites deny the Living Witness Doctrine; they have congregations in Ireland, England, Australia, New Zealand and the USA.
##The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for Church of Christ) view is that Jesus Christ is human but endowed by God with attributes not found in ordinary humans, though lacking attributes found in God. They further contend that it is God's will to worship Jesus.[24] For Iglesia ni Cristo Christ has some divine attributes but it is not inherent to him, given only by the one true God, the Father. Iglesia ni Cristo contends that in the beginning Christ is "Logos" i.e. in the mind of God (reason for creation, a plan of God)before God sets the foundation of the world. Christ's existence or coming in the future (as the greatest messenger of God for all time) is already in the mind of God, planned by God and spoken it even in the Garden of Eden (the "seed of a woman" in Genesis 3:15) and later in the time of the prophets through the numerous prophecies about his existence or his coming in the 1st century. His existence only started at the womb of Mary prior to that he is still the "Logos" or a "Word of God". Later as mentioned in Revelation (Rev. 19:13), when the Logos or prophecies were fulfilled he was even called the "Word of God".[citation needed]
##Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only God the Father, Jehovah, is the one true almighty God, even over his Son. They consider Jesus to be "the First-begotten Son", God's only direct creation, and the very first creation by God. They give relative "worship" or "obeisance" (homage, as to a king) to Christ,[25] pray through him as God's only high priest, consider Jesus Christ to be Mediator and Messiah, but they believe that only the Father is without beginning, and that the Father is greater than the Son in all things; only Jehovah the Father therefore is worthy of highest worship or "sacred service". They believe that the Son had a beginning, and was brought forth at a certain point, as "the firstborn of all creation" and "the only-begotten". They identify Jesus as the Archangel Michael, mentioned in the Bible at Jude 9. They believe he left heaven to become Jesus Christ on earth, and that after his ascension to heaven he resumed his pre-human identity. This belief is partly based upon 1 Thessalonians 4:16, in which "the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel". They also cite passages from the books of Daniel and Revelation in which Jesus and Michael take similar action and exercise similar authority, concluding these scriptures indicate them to be the same person.[26] They do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person, but consider it to be God's divine active force.[27]
##The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often referred to as Mormonism, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings that are not united in substance, a view sometimes called social trinitarianism. Members of this church believe the three individual deities are "one" in will or purpose, as Jesus was "one" with his disciples, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Godhead or a Divine Council, and are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission.[28] Because their official belief is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each "Gods" in one Godhead, Mormonism is said to hold a form of tri-theism. Some view Mormonism as a form of Arianism.[29][30][31] Like Arianism, Mormons believe that God created Christ,[29][30][31][32] that he is subordinate to God the Father[30][33] and that Christ created the universe.[33][34] However, Mormon doctrine varies significantly from the teachings of Arius.[35] Mormons also do not subscribe to the ideas that Christ was unlike the Father in substance,[36] that the Father could not appear on earth,[37] nor that Christ was adopted by the Father,[32] as found in Arianism.[34][38] Mormons assert that the classification of deity in terms of a substance was a post-apostolic corruption, and that God differs from humans not in substance, but in intelligence. While Mormons regard God the Father as the Supreme Being and literal Father of the spirits of all humankind, they also teach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are equally divine in that they share in the Father's "comprehension of all things".[39]
##The Members Church of God International believes in the divinity of Christ but rejects the doctrine of Trinity. They believe in what appears to be a Subordationist viewpoint in which Jesus Christ, is the Father's only Begotten Son (in Romanized Greek: monogenestheos, meaning "only-begotten god") and thus is subject to the Father.[citation needed]
##Oneness Pentecostalism is a subset of Pentecostalism that believes God is only one person, and that he manifests himself in different ways, faces, or "modes": "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. The term Son always refers to the Incarnation, and never to deity apart from humanity."[40] Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus was "Son" only when he became flesh on earth, but was the Father prior to his being made human. They refer to the Father as the "Spirit" and the Son as the "Flesh". Oneness Pentecostals reject the Trinity doctrine, viewing it as pagan and unscriptural, and hold to the Jesus' Name doctrine with respect to baptisms. Oneness Pentecostals are often referred to as "Modalists" or "Sabellians" or "Jesus Only".
##Some forms of Quakerism hold universalist views.[clarification needed]
##Denominations within the Sabbatarian tradition (Armstrongism) believe that Christ the Son and God the Father are co-eternal, but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a being or person. Mainstream Christians characterise this teaching as the heresy of Binitarianism, the teaching that God is a "Duality", or "two-in-one", rather than three. Armstrong theology holds that God is a "Family", that expands eventually, that "God reproduces Himself", but that originally there was a co-eternal "Duality", God and the Word, rather than a "Trinity".
##Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in one person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. The Father, the being or soul of God, was born into the world and put on a body from Mary. Throughout his life, Jesus put away all human desires and tendencies until he was completely divine. After his resurrection, he influences the world through the Holy Spirit, which is his activity. Thus Jesus Christ is the one God; the Father as to his soul, the Son as to his body, and the Holy Spirit as to his activity in the world.
##Unitarian Christians and Unitarian Universalist Christians are Holy Spirit Unitarians[clarification needed].
Nontrinitarian doctrine often generates controversy among mainstream Christians, as most trinitarians consider it heresy not to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. At times, segments of Nicene Christianity reacted with ultimate severity toward nontrinitarian views. Following the Reformation, among some Protestant groups such as the Unitarians and Christadelphians, the same views have been accommodated.
Unitarian Universalism[edit]
Members of Unitarian Universalism may or may not identify as Christian. Traditionally, unitarianism was a form of Christianity that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Unitarianism was rejected by orthodox Christianity at the First Council of Nicaea, an ecumenical council held in 325, but resurfaced subsequently in Church history, especially during the theological turmoils of the Protestant Reformation. In 1961, the American Unitarian Association (AUA) was consolidated with the Universalist Church of America (UCA), forming the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Judaism[edit]
In all branches of Judaism, the God of the Hebrew Bible is considered one singular entity, with no divisions, or multi-persons within, and they reject the idea of a co-equal multi-personal Godhead or "Trinity", as actually against the Shema. They do not consider the Hebrew word for "one" (that is "echad") as meaning anything other than a simple numerical one.[41][42] Citing examples for "echad" in the Hebrew Scriptures as being either just one king, one house, one garden, one army, or one man, etc. Also, they reject the notion that somehow there are "traces of the Trinity" in the Hebrew word "elohim". Which in given contexts simply means "God" in superlative majesty, not necessarily "multipersonal godhead". The Jewish polemics against the Trinity doctrine date almost from its very conception. Even in the Talmud, R. Simlai (3rd century) declared, in refutation of the "heretics," "The three words 'El,' 'Elohim,' and 'Yhwh' (Josh. xxii. 22) connote one and the same person, as one might say, 'King, Emperor, Augustus'" (Yer. Ber. ix. 12d).[43]
Islam[edit]
In Islam's holy book, the Quran, Allah (God) denounces the concept of Trinity (Qur'an 4:171, 5:72-73, 112) as an over-reverence by Christians of God's Word, the prophet and messiah Jesus Christ son of the virgin Mary, while maintaining Jesus as one of the most important and respected prophets and Messengers of God, (2:136) primarily sent to prevent the Jews from changing the Torah, (61:6) and to refresh and reaffirm his original message as revealed to Moses and earlier New Testament prophets. The creation of Jesus is framed similar to the creation of Adam out of dust, but with Jesus' birth meaning his creation excludes male human intervention rather than creation completely without human participation (3:59). Belief in all of the aforementioned about Jesus as a prophet (5:78), as well as belief in the original gospel and Torah and belief in Jesus' virgin birth (3:45) are core criterion of being a Muslim and Quranic criterion for salvation in the hereafter along with belief in the Prophet Muhammad and all the prior prophets. In short, God is seen as being both perfect and indivisible. He can therefore have no peer or equal. Jesus, being God's creation, can never be considered to be equal with God or a part of God. To do so is considered by Islam to be blasphemy.
History[edit]
Part of a series on the
History of
 Christian theology
Malmesbury Abbey's 1407 Bible from Belgium
Background
Theology · Early Christianity · Timeline · History of Christianity · Ecclesiastical polity · Trinitarianism · Nontrinitarianism · Restorationism · Christology · Mariology · Biblical canon · Deuterocanonical books
Ecumenical Creeds
Apostles' · Nicene
Chalcedonian · Athanasian
Patristics and Councils
Church Fathers · Augustine
Nicaea · Ephesus · Chalcedon
Post-Nicene development
Heresy · Monophysitism · Monothelitism · Iconoclasm · Gregory I · Alcuin · Photios · East–West Schism · Scholasticism · Aquinas · Anselm · Palamas
Reformation
Protestant Reformation · Luther · Melanchthon · Indulgences · Justification · Five solae · 95 Theses · Book of Concord · Predestination · Calvinism · Arminianism · English Reformation · Counter-Reformation · Trent
Since the Reformation
Pietism · Revivalism · John Wesley · Great Awakenings · Holiness movement · Restoration Movement · Existentialism · Liberalism · Modernism (Roman Catholicism) · Postmodernism · Vatican II · Radical Orthodoxy · Jean-Luc Marion · Hermeneutics · Liberation theology · Christian anarchism
P christianity.svg Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Early Christianity[edit]
Most nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity (see Apostolic Age) was nontrinitarian, but (depending on which church) believe rather that early Christianity was either strictly Unitarian or Binitarian or Modalist, as in the case of the Montanists, Marcionites, and Christian Gnostics. Early Christianity eventually changed after the edicts of Emperor Constantine I and his sentence pronounced on Arius, which eventually resulted in the adoption of Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire during the reign of Theodosius I.[citation needed]



 The First Council of Nicaea depicted with Arius beneath the feet of Emperor Constantine and the bishops
Because they believe it was during a dramatic shift in Christianity's status that the doctrine of the Trinity attained its definitive development, nontrinitarians typically consider the doctrine questionable. Nontrinitarians see the Nicene Creed and the results of the Council of Chalcedon as essentially political documents, resulting from the subordination of true doctrine to state interests by leaders of the Catholic Church, so that the church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.[citation needed]
Although nontrinitarian beliefs continued to multiply, and among some peoples were dominant for hundreds of years after their inception—e.g. Lombards, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals—Trinitarians eventually gained prominence in the Roman Empire. Nontrinitarians typically argue that the early nontrinitarian beliefs of Christianity, e.g. Arianism, were systematically suppressed (often to the point of death),[44] and that many early Christian scriptural sources and so called heretical texts have been as thoroughly lost as if they had been systematically burnt.[citation needed] After the First Council of Nicaea, Roman Emperor Constantine I issued an edict against Arius's writings which included systematic book burning.[45] In spite of issuing this decree, Constantine soon ordered the readmission of Arius to the church, removed those bishops who, like Athanasius, upheld the teaching of Nicaea,[46] allowed Arianism to grow within the Empire and thus to spread to Germanic tribes on the frontier,[47] and was himself baptized into the Arian version of Christianity.[48] His successors as Christian emperors promoted Arianism, until Theodosius I came to the throne in 379 and supported Nicene Christianity.
The Easter letter that Athanasius issued in 367, when the Eastern Empire was ruled by the Arian Emperor Valens, defined what books belong to the Old Testament and the New Testament, together with seven other books not included in the biblical canon but appointed "for instruction in the word of godliness"; at the same time it excluded what Athanasius called apocryphal writings, falsely presented as ancient.[49] Elaine Pagels writes: "In AD 367, Athanasius, the zealous bishop of Alexandria... issued an Easter letter in which he demanded that Egyptian monks destroy all such unacceptable writings, except for those he specifically listed as 'acceptable' even 'canonical' — a list that constitutes the present 'New Testament'".[50][51] Some nontrinitarians say that the condemned writings were Arian books.[citation needed]
Some scholars investigating the historical Jesus assert that Jesus taught neither his own equality with God nor the Trinity (see, for example, the Jesus Seminar).
Nontrinitarians also dispute the veracity of the Nicene Creed based on its adoption nearly 300 years after the life of Jesus as a result of conflict within pre-Nicene early Christianity. Nontrinitarians (both Modalists and Unitarians) also generally say that Athanasius and others at Nicaea adopted Greek Platonic philosophy and concepts, and incorporated them in their views of God and Christ.[52] Nontrinitarians also cite scriptures such as Matthew 15:9 and Ephesians 4:14 that warn the reader to beware the doctrines of men.[citation needed]
The author H. G. Wells, later famous for his contribution to science-fiction, wrote in The Outline of History: "We shall see presently how later on all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no evidence that the apostles of Jesus ever heard of the Trinity, at any rate from him."[53]
The question of why such a central doctrine to the Christian faith would never have been explicitly stated in scripture or taught in detail by Jesus himself was sufficiently important to 16th century historical figures such as Michael Servetus as to lead them to argue the question. The Geneva City Council, in accord with the judgment of the cantons of Zürich, Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen, condemned Servetus to be burned at the stake for this and his opposition to infant baptism.
The Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics describes the five stages that led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.[54]
1.The acceptance of the pre-human existence of Jesus as the (middle-platonic) Logos, namely, as the medium between the transcendent sovereign God and the created cosmos. The doctrine of Logos was accepted by the Apologists and by other Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as Justin the Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, and the 4th century Arius.
2.The doctrine of the timeless generation of the Son from the Father as it was articulated by Origen in his effort to support the ontological immutability of God, that he is ever-being a father and a creator. The doctrine of the timeless generation was adopted by Athanasius of Alexandria.
3.The acceptance of the idea that the son of God is homoousios to his father, that is, of the same transcendent nature. This position was declared in the Nicene Creed, which specifically states the son of God is as immutable as his father.
4.The acceptance that the Holy Spirit also has ontological equality as a third person in a divine Trinity and the final Trinitarian terminology by the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers.
5.The addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed, as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
Following the Reformation[edit]
Main article: History of Unitarianism
Following the Protestant Reformation, and the German Peasants' War of 1524–1525, by 1530 large areas of Northern Europe were Protestant, and forms of nontrinitarianism began to surface among some "Radical Reformation" groups, particularly Anabaptists. The first recorded English antitrinitarian was John Assheton (1548). The Italian humanist "Council of Venice" (1550) and the trial of Michael Servetus (1553) marked the clear emergence of markedly anti-Trinitarian Protestants. Though the only organised nontrinitarian churches were the Polish Brethren who split from the Calvinists (1565, expelled from Poland 1658), and the Unitarian Church of Transylvania (1568-today). Nonconformists, Dissenters and Latitudinarians in Britain were often Arians or Unitarians, and the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed nontrinitarian worship in Britain. In America, Arian and Unitarian views were also found among some Millennialist and Adventist groups, though the Unitarian Church itself began to decline in numbers and influence after the 1870s.[55][56]
Points of dissent[edit]
Non-trinitarian Christians of Arian persuasion contend that the weight of Scriptural evidence leans more towards Subordinationism, that of the Son's total submission to the Father, and of Paternal supremacy over the Son in every aspect. They acknowledge and confess the Son's glorious and high rank, at God's right hand, but teach that the Father is still greater than the Son, in all things.
While acknowledging that the Father, Son, and Spirit are essential in creation and salvation, they argue that that in itself does not necessarily prove that they three are each co-equal or co-eternal. They also contend that the only number clearly ascribed to God in the Bible (both Testaments) is the number "one", and that the Trinity, literally meaning a set of three, ascribes a co-equal threeness to God that is not explicitly Scriptural.
Scriptural support[edit]
Critics argue that the Trinity, for a teaching described as fundamental, lacks direct scriptural support. Upholders of the doctrine declare that the doctrine is not stated directly in the New Testament, but is instead an interpretation of elements contained in it that are seen as implying the doctrine that was formulated only in the 4th century. Thus William Barclay says: "It is important and helpful to remember that the word Trinity is not itself a New Testament word. It is even true in at least one sense to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not directly New Testament doctrine. It is rather a deduction from and an interpretation of the thought and the language of the New Testament."[57] And the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]", "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century".[58]
Similarly, Encyclopedia Encarta states: "The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father. [...] The term trinitas was first used in the 2nd century, by the Latin theologian Tertullian, but the concept was developed in the course of the debates on the nature of Christ [...]. In the 4th century, the doctrine was finally formulated".[59] Encyclopædia Britannica says: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). [...] The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. [...] by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."[60] The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: "One does not find in the NT the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity."[61]
Speaking of legitimate theological development, Joseph F. Kelly writes: "The Bible may not use the word 'Trinity', but it refers to God the Father frequently; the Gospel of John emphasized the divinity of the Son; several New Testament books treat the Holy Spirit as divine. The ancient theologians did not violate biblical teaching but sought to develop its implications. ... [Arius's] potent arguments forced other Christians to refine their thinking about the Trinity. at two ecumenical councils, Nicea I in 325 and Constantinople I in 381, the church at large defined the Trinity in the way now so familiar to us from the Nicene Creed. This exemplifies development of doctrine at its best. The Bible may not use the word 'Trinity', but trinitarian theology does not go against the Bible. On the contrary, Catholics believe that trinitarianism has carefully developed a biblical teaching for later generations."[2]
Questions over the alleged co-equal deity of Jesus[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2011)


 This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view. (March 2012)
Nontrinitarians[who?] say that there is no clear Scriptural backing for the doctrine of the co-equal divinity of Jesus. They point to verses that purport to demonstrate that Jesus himself explicitly stated that "the Father is greater" than he (John 14:28);[17] that he disavowed omniscience as the Son (John 8:28; in Mark 13:32), that he "learned obedience" (Hebrews 5:8); questioned being called even "good" in deference to God in the parable of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-17); they say that only the Father in Scripture is referred to as the "one God", and "out of (ex) whom all things are" (1 Corinthians 8:6); that Christ the Son is called the 'firstborn of all creation' (Colossians 1:15) and 'the beginning of God's creation' (Revelation 3:14); that Jesus referred to ascending to "my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God" (John 20:17) and that he referred to his Father as "the only true God." (John 17:3)
Additionally, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:4 when saying in Mark 12:29 "'The most important [commandment] is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'" It has been stated[by whom?] that in the original Greek in Mark 12, there are no "plural modifiers" in that Greek word there for "one" (eis), but that in Mark 12 it is simply a masculine singular "one". And that because of that, there is no valid reason to believe that the Hebrew word for "one" in Deuteronomy 6 ("echad") was necessarily a "plural one", rather than just simply numerical "one".
They also argue to show that "Elohim" (sometimes translated "gods") does not hint at any form of plurality, but rather to majesty pointing to the Hebrew dialect and grammar rules that render this title in nearly all circumstances with a singular verb.[43]
With regard to the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic and Trinitarian, wrote that Mark 10:18, Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Ephesians 1:17, 2 Corinthians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:28, Mark 13:32, Philippians 2:5-10, and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 are "texts that seem to imply that the title God was not used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject"; that Gal 2:20, Acts 20:28, John 1:18, Colossians 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 1John 5:20, Romans 9:5, and 2 Peter 1:1 are "texts where, by reason of textual variants or syntax, the use of 'God' for Jesus is dubious"; and that Hebrews 1:8-9, John 1:1, and John 20:28 are "texts where clearly Jesus is called God".[62]
Trinitarians (who hold that Jesus Christ is distinct from God the Father), and nontrinitarians who hold Jesus Christ as Almighty God (such as the Modalists), say that these statements are based on Jesus' existence as the Son of God in human flesh; that he is therefore both God and man, who became "lower than the angels, for our sake," (Hebrews 2:6-8) and that he was tempted as humans are tempted, but did not sin (Hebrews 4:14-16).
Some nontrinitarians counter the belief that the Son was limited only during his earthly life by citing "the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3), placing Jesus in an inferior position to the Father even after his resurrection and exaltation. They also cite Acts 5:31 and Philippians 2:9, indicating that Jesus became glorified and exalted after ascension to heaven, and to Hebrews 9:24, Acts 7:55, and 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, regarding Jesus as a distinct personality in heaven, still with a lesser position than the Father, all after Christ's ascension.
Views on allegedly Trinitarian passages in scripture[edit]
Non-trinitarian Christians such as Jehovah's Witnesses argue that a person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. They say it is noteworthy at the outset that the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity do not explicitly teach co-equality or co-eternity in any clear formulation, and also that most of those Verses in question actually mention only two persons, not three; so nontrinitarians say that even if the trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.[63]
John 1:1[edit]
Main article: John 1:1
John 1:1 - The contention with this verse is that there is a distinction between God and the Logos (or "the Word"). Trinitarians contend that the third part of the verse (John 1:1c) translates as "and the Word was God", pointing to a distinction as subjects between God and the Logos but an equivalence in nature.[64][65][66][67] Some non-trinitarians (Jehovah's Witnesses, specifically) contend that the Koine Greek ("kai theos ên ho logos") should instead be translated as "and the Word was a god", or as what they see as the more literal word-for-word translation from the Greek as "and a God was the Word", basing this on the contention that the section is an example of an anarthrous, that is, "theos" lacks the definite article, meaning its use was indefinite - "a god", which could denote either Almighty God or a divine being in general. Nontrinitarians also contend that had the author of John's gospel wished to say "and the Word was God" that he could have easily written "kai ho theos ên ho logos", but he did not. In this way, nontrinitarians contend that the Logos would be considered to be the pre-existent Jesus, who is actually distinct from God. The argument being that the distinction between the Logos and the Father was not just in terms of "person", but also in terms of "theos".[68][self-published source] [69][70] Meaning that not only were they distinct persons, but also distinct "Gods", given the fact that the second occurrence of "theos" was an indefinite noun; and that only the Father was treated as the absolute "Theos" in John 1:1. The argument being that only one person is actually referred to as the Absolute God, "ho Theos", in John 1:1, that person being only the Father, not the Logos.[68][self-published source][70] Alternatively, others argue that the Greek should be translated as "and the Logos was divine" (with theos being an adjective), and the Logos being interpreted as God's "plan" or "reasoning" for salvation. Thus, according to Modalists, when "the Logos became flesh" in John 1:14, it is not interpreted to be a pre-existent Jesus being incarnated, but rather the "plan" or "eternal mind" of God being manifested in the birth of the man Jesus. Others still consider a suitable translation of the verse to be "What God was, the logos/word was." [71]
John 10:30[edit]
John 10:30 - Nontrinitarians such as Arians believe that when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," he did not mean that they were actually "one substance", or "one God", or co-equal and co-eternal, but rather that, according to context, which was that of shepherding the sheep, he and the Father were "one" in pastoral work. The thought being a "unity of purpose" in saving the sheep. Arians also cite John 17:21 where Jesus prayed regarding his disciples: “That they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may be in us,” adding “that they may be one even as we are one.” They point out that Jesus used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these instances and assert that since Jesus did not expect for his followers to literally become "one" entity, or "one in substance", with each other, or with God, then it is said that Jesus also did not expect his hearers to think that he and God the Father were "one" entity either. Rather Arian nontrinitarians insist that the oneness meant in that context was a oneness in divine work, mission, love and purpose.
John 20:28-29[edit]
John 20:28-29 - "And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"". Since Thomas called Jesus God, Jesus's statement appears to endorse Thomas's assertion. Nontrinitarians typically respond that it is plausible that Thomas is addressing the Lord Jesus and then the Father. Another possible answer is that Jesus himself said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34) referring to Psalm 82:6-8. The word "gods" in verse 6 and "God" in verse 8 is the same Hebrew word "'elohim",[72] which means, "gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative",[73] and can also refer to powers and potentates, in general, or as "God, god, gods, rulers, judges or angels",[72] and as "divine ones, goddess, godlike one".[74]


 This paragraph possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (December 2013)
The notion being that since Christ represented God the Father perfectly, and was given power and authority by the Father, therefore Christ was "God", over the circumstances, similar to how Moses was called "God" in Exodus 7:1, because Moses was given divine power, and was "Elohim" to the people, over the situation. And that therefore Jesus was a "God" to Thomas, or a powerful being in that situation, as a perfect reflection of the Father's divine power. But still not necessarily co-equal with the Father in everything, just as Moses wasn't. The first explanation is perhaps the most plausible, in that the Greek forms used in the text do not denote two descriptions of one personage, but two personages described separately. A nontrinitarian would link this witnessing of Thomas to Jesus's saying that, to paraphrase, "He who sees me, sees the Father", and would say that this text affirms the doctrine that Jesus is Lord but only God the Father is absolute deity, and hence the Lord of Jesus. Because "no one can come to the Father except through me (Jesus)", it is necessary however to call Jesus "Lord" (a requirement of belief in the New Testament), which is exactly what Thomas did when he believed.
2 Corinthians 13:14[edit]
2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the Holy Spirit be with all of you." It's been argued by Trinitarians that since, in this verse, all three "Father, Son, and Spirit" are mentioned together in Paul's prayer for Grace on all believers, and are obviously essential for salvation, that they must make up one triune Godhead, and must therefore be co-equal or co-eternal. Nontrinitarians such as Arians reply that they do not disagree that all three are necessary for salvation and grace, but nowhere in the passage is it explicitly said that all three are co-equal or co-eternal, or even have to be. They argue that it is simply a circular assumption that just because they are mentioned together and are important, that they must ipso facto make up one co-equal Godhead.[75]
They point to other verses in the Bible that mention God, Christ, and the "Holy Angels" together in important solemn situations and oaths, and argue that no one believes that therefore the "holy angels" must be part of a co-equal Godhead, simply because they're mentioned along with Christ or God. And nontrinitarians remark that, though some passages mention Father, Son, and Spirit together, nowhere do those verses say that the Father is still not supreme or above all.[citation needed]
Philippians 2:5-6[edit]
Philippians 2:5-6 - "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [or "which was also in Christ Jesus",] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (ESV). The word here translated in the English Standard Version as "a thing to be grasped" is ἁρπαγμόν. Other translations of the word are indicated in the Holman Christian Standard Bible: "Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage" [or "to be grasped", or "to be held on to"].[76] The King James Version has: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."[77] An Internet commentator criticizes the King James Version for conveying a thought basically opposite of what was actually said, and says the text means: "Let this mind be in you, which also was in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped after".[78]
Hebrews 9:14[edit]
Hebrews 9:14 - "How much more will the Blood of Christ, who through an eternal Spirit, offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works, that we may render sacred service to the living God?" Trinitarians and Athanasians have used this verse as a proof-text that since all three are mentioned together, and all are essential in the plan of salvation and atonement, that because of that, are each eternal God.[citation needed] Most nontrinitarians admit that the Holy Spirit had no beginning, but believe it is not an actual person like the Father is. Nontrinitarians also agree that all three are essential, but contend that it's obvious that God the Father is ultimate, and is the one who is ultimately reached, and therefore, although all are divine and essential, the "living God" the Father is still greater than the other two entities. And that a "co-equal trinity" is still not explicitly taught in the passage, but only inferred or assumed.[79]
Terminology[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)
Nontrinitarians state that the doctrine of the Trinity relies on non-Biblical terminology, that the term "Trinity" is not found in Scripture and that the number three is never clearly associated with God necessarily, other than within the Comma Johanneum which is of spurious or disputed authenticity. They argue that the only number clearly unambiguously ascribed to God in the Bible is one, and that the Trinity, literally meaning three-in-one, ascribes a co-equal threeness to God that is not explicitly biblical.
Nontrinitarians cite other examples of terms not found in the Bible; multiple "persons" in relation to God, the terms "God the Son", "God-Man", "God the Holy Spirit", "eternal Son", and "eternally begotten". While the Trinitarianism term hypostasis is found in the Bible, it is used only once in reference to God [Heb 1:3] where it states that Jesus is the express image of God's person. The Bible does not explicitly use the term in relation to the Holy Spirit nor explicitly mentions the Son having a distinct hypostasis from the Father.
All agree that the First Council of Nicaea included in its Creed the major term homoousios (of the same essence), which was used also by the Council of Chalcedon to speak of a double consubstantiality of Christ, "consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood".[80] Nontrinitarians accept what Pier Franco Beatrice wrote: "The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine's Hermetic background. [...] The Plato recalled by Constantine is just a name used to cover precisely the Egyptian and Hermetic theology of the "consubstantiality" of the Logos-Son with the Nous-Father, having recourse to a traditional apologetic argument. [...] Constantine's Hermetic interpretation of Plato's theology and consequently the emperor's decision to insert homoousios in the Creed of Nicaea."[81]
Trinitarians see the absence of the actual word "Trinity" and other Trinity-related terms in the Bible as no more significant than the absence in the Bible of the words "monotheism", "omnipotence", "oneness", "Pentecostal", "apostolic", "incarnation" and even "Bible" itself.[82][83] and maintain that, "while the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical".[2][57][84]
Holy Spirit[edit]
See also: Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations)
Nontrinitarian views about the Holy Spirit differ in certain ways from mainstream Christian doctrine and generally fall into several distinct categories. Most scriptures traditionally in support of the Trinity refer to the Father and the Son, but not to the Holy Spirit.
Unitarian and Arian[edit]
Groups with Unitarian theology such as Polish Socinians, the 18th-19th Century Unitarian Church, Christadelphians conceive of the Holy Spirit not as a person but an aspect of God's power.[85] Christadelphians believe that the phrase Holy Spirit refers to God's power or mind/character, depending on the context.[22]
Though Arius himself believed that the Holy Spirit is a person or high-ranking Angel, that had a beginning, modern Arian or Semi-Arian Christian groups such as Dawn Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses believe, the same as Unitarian groups, that the Holy Spirit is not an actual person but is God's "power in action", like God's divine "breath" or "energy", which had no beginning, that he uses to accomplish his will and purpose in creation, redemption, sanctification, and divine guidance, and they do not typically capitalize the term.[86] They define the Holy Spirit as "God's active force", and they believe that it proceeds only from the Father.[86] A Jehovah's Witness brochure quotes Alvan Lamson: "...the Father, Son, and... Holy Spirit [are] not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One... The very reverse is the fact."[87]
Binitarianism[edit]
Armstrongites, such as the Living Church of God, believe that the Logos and God the Father are co-equal and co-eternal, but they do not believe that the Holy Spirit is an actual person, like the Father and the Son. They believe the Holy Spirit is the Power, Mind, or Character of God, depending on the context. They teach, "The Holy Spirit is the very essence, the mind, life and power of God. It is not a Being. The Spirit is inherent in the Father and the Son, and emanates from Them throughout the entire universe". Mainstream Christians characterise this teaching as the heresy of Binitarianism, the teaching that God is a "Duality", or "two-in-one", rather than three.[88]
Modalist groups[edit]
Oneness Pentecostalism, as with other modalist groups, teach that the Holy Spirit is a mode of God, rather than a distinct or separate person in the Godhead. They instead teach that the Holy Spirit is another name for God the Father. According to Oneness theology, the Holy Spirit essentially is the Father, operating in a certain capacity or manifestation. The United Pentecostal Church teaches that there is no personal distinction between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[89][90][91]
These two titles "Father" and "Holy Spirit" (as well as others) do not reflect separate "persons" within the Godhead, but rather two different ways in which the one God reveals himself to his creatures. Thus, the Old Testament speaks of "The Lord God and his Spirit" in Isaiah 48:16, but this does not indicate two "persons" according to Oneness theology. Rather, "The Lord" indicates God in all of His glory and transcendence, while the words "His Spirit" refer to God's own Spirit that moved upon and spoke to the prophet. The Oneness view is that this does not imply two "persons" any more than the numerous scriptural references to a man and his spirit or soul (such as in Luke 12:19) imply two "persons" existing within one body.[92]
Latter Day Saint movement[edit]
See also: Holy Spirit in Mormonism and God in Mormonism
In the Latter Day Saint movement, a collection of independent church groups that trace their origins to a Christian primitivist movement founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, the Holy Ghost (usually synonymous with Holy Spirit.)[93] is considered the third distinct member of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost),[94] and to have a body of "spirit,"[95] which makes him unlike the Father and the Son who are said to have bodies "as tangible as man's."[96] According to LDS doctrine, the Holy Spirit is believed to be a person,[96][97] with a body of spirit, able to pervade all worlds.[98]
Latter Day Saints believe that the Holy Spirit is part of the "Divine Council", but that the Father is greater than both the Son and the Holy Spirit.[98] According to official Latter-day Saint teaching, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct "Gods" joined in purpose as "one Godhead". Because of this, some view Latter-day Saint theology as a form of "tri-theism".
However, a number of Latter Day Saint sects, most notably the Community of Christ (second largest Latter Day Saint denomination) and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot),[99] and those sects separating from the Community of Christ and Church of Christ, follow a traditional Protestant trinitarian theology.
Judaism[edit]
The "holy spirit" (also transliterated ruah ha-qodesh) is a term used in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Jewish writings to refer to the Spirit of Yehowah. (The expression in Hebrew is: יהוה .קָדְשְׁך) The Hebrew term ruakh kodeshka, without the definite article, also occurs. The Holy Spirit in Judaism generally refers to the divine aspect of prophecy and wisdom. It also refers to the divine force, quality, and influence of the Most High God, over the universe or over his creatures, in given contexts.[100] It is not considered a separate person of God, but rather God's divine wisdom, breath, or moving power.
Other groups[edit]
The Unity Church interprets the religious terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit metaphysically, as three aspects of mind action: mind, idea, and expression. They believe this is the process through which all manifestation takes place.[101]
As a movement that developed out of Christianity, Rastafari has its own unique interpretation of both the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit. Although there are several slight variations, they generally state that it is Haile Selassie who embodies both God the Father and God the Son, while the Holy (or rather, "Hola") Spirit is to be found within Rasta believers (see 'I and I'), and within every human being. Rastas also say that the true church is the human body, and that it is this church (or "structure") that contains the Holy Spirit.
Inter-religious dialogue[edit]
The Trinity doctrine is integral in inter-religious disagreements with the other two main Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam; the former rejects Jesus' divine mission entirely, and the latter accepts Jesus as a human prophet and the Messiah but not as the son of God. The concept of a co-equal trinity is totally rejected, with Quranic verses calling the doctrine of the Trinity blasphemous.[102] Many[who?] within Judaism and Islam[citation needed] also accuse Christian Trinitarians of practicing polytheism—believing in three gods rather than just one.
Purported pagan origins[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)



 Horus, Osiris, and Isis


 The Trimurti: Brahmā, Vishnu, and Shiva


 Altar depicting a tricephalic god identified as Lugus.
Those who argue for a pagan basis note that as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common, and that this influence was also prevalent among the Celts, as well as in India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome.[citation needed] The ancient Egyptians arranged their gods and goddesses in groups of three, or trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, and the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis.
In ancient India, the concept of the trio—Brahma the creator, Shiva the destroyer, and Vishnu the preserver dates back to millennia before Christ.[103][104] This triad of 3 gods is regarded as Trimurti, meaning 'tri' = three and 'murti' = figure, manifestation. A number of triads can be found in Hindu scriptures such as Vedas, Upanishads, among others.[105]
Some nontrinitarians[who?] also say that a link between the doctrine of the Trinity and the Egyptian Christian theologians of Alexandria suggests that Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Jesus, served to infuse Egypt's pagan religious heritage into Christianity. They charge the Church with adopting these Egyptian tenets after adapting them to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy.[106]
They say that there was much pagan Greek and Platonic influence in the development of the idea of a co-equal triune Godhead, many basic concepts from Aristotelian philosophy being mixed and incorporated into the Biblical God. As one piece of evidence, they say that Aristotle himself wrote: "All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity."[107][108]
The words thus attributed to Aristotle differ in a number of ways from what has been published as the philosopher's original text in Greek,[109][110][111] which for instance has nothing corresponding to "let us use this number in the worship of the gods" before the mention of the Pythagoreans. They differ also from translations of the works of Aristotle by scholars such as Stuart Leggatt, W. K. C. Guthrie, J. L. Stocks, Thomas Taylor and Jules Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire. The independent but concordant translations by Guthrie and Stocks of what Aristotle, in his On the Heavens, wrote about what he considered to be the only three dimensions are considered "good English translations",[112] and a comparison with them of the words above attributed to Aristotle shows how the latter diverges.
The Guthrie translation is: "Magnitude divisible in one direction is a line, in two directions is a surface, and in three directions is a body. There is no magnitude not included in these; for three are all, and 'in three directions' is the same as 'in every direction'. It is just as the Pythagoreans say, the whole world and all things in it are summed up in the number three; for end, middle, and beginning give the number of the whole, and their number is the triad. Hence it is that we have taken this number from nature, as if it were her laws, and we make use of it even for the worship of the gods."[113]
The Stocks translation is: "A magnitude if divisible one way is a line, if two ways a surface, and if three a body. Beyond these there is no other magnitude, because the three dimensions are all that there are, and that which is divisible in three directions is divisible in all. For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the triad. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the gods."[114]
Some anti-Trinitarians note also that the Greek philosopher Plato believed in a special "threeness" in life and in the universe. In Plato's work Phaedo, he introduces the word "triad" (in Greek τριάς),[115] which they translate as "trinity". Plato believed and taught that the Ultimate Reality was a "trinity of divine forms", of the One, Nous, Psyche.[citation needed] This was adopted by 3rd and 4th century professed Christians as roughly corresponding to "Father, Word, and Spirit (Soul)".[116] Non-trinitarian Christians contend that such notions and adoptions make the Trinity doctrine more suspect, as not being Biblical, but extra-Biblical in concept.
As evidence of this, they say there is a widely acknowledged synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy evident in Trinitarian formulas appearing by the end of the 3rd century. Hence, beginning with the Constantinian period, they allege, these pagan ideas were forcibly imposed on the churches as Catholic doctrine rooted firmly in the soil of Hellenism. Most groups subscribing to the theory of a Great Apostasy generally concur in this thesis.
The early apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Irenaeus, frequently discussed the parallels and contrasts between Christianity, Paganism and other syncretic religions, and answered charges of borrowing from paganism in their apologetical writings.
Hellenic influences[edit]
See also: Hellenization
Advocates of the "Hellenic influences" argument attempt to trace the influence of Greek philosophers, such as Plato or Aristotle, who, they say, taught an essential "threeness" of the Ultimate Reality, and also the concept of "eternal derivation", that is, "a birth without a becoming". They say that theologians of the 4th century A.D., such as Athanasius of Alexandria, then interpreted the Bible through a Middle Platonist and later Neoplatonist filter.
The argument is that many of these 3rd and 4th-century Christians mixed Greek pagan philosophy with the Scriptures, incorporating Platonism into their concept of the Biblical God and the Biblical Christ. These advocates point to what they see as similarities between Hellenistic philosophy and post-Apostolic Christianity, by examining the following factors:
##Stuart G Hall (formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London) describes the subsequent process of philosophical/theological amalgamation in Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (1991), where he writes:

"The [Christian] apologists [such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus] began to claim that Greek culture pointed to and was consummated in the Christian message, just as the Old Testament was. This process was done most thoroughly in the synthesis of Clement of Alexandria. It can be done in several ways. You can rake through Greek literature, and find (especially in the oldest seers and poets) references to ‘God’ which are more compatible with monotheism than with polytheism (so at length Athenagoras.) You can work out a common chronology between the legends of prehistoric (Homer) Greece and the biblical record (so Theophilus.) You can adapt a piece of pre-Christian Jewish apologetic, which claimed that Plato and other Greek philosophers got their best ideas indirectly from the teachings of Moses in the Bible, which was much earlier. This theory combines the advantage of making out the Greeks to be plagiarists (and therefore second-rate or criminal), while claiming that they support Christianity by their arguments at least some of the time. Especially this applied to the question of God."
##The neo-Platonic trinities, such as that of the One, the Nous and the Soul, are not considered a trinity necessarily of consubstantial equals as in mainstream Christianity. However, the neo-Platonic trinity has the doctrine of emanation, or "eternal derivation", a timeless procedure of generation having as a source the One and claimed to be paralleled with the generation of the light from the Sun. This was adopted by Origen and later on by Athanasius, and applied to the generation of the Son from the Father, because they believed that this analogy could be used to support the notion that the Father, as immutable, always had been a Father, and that the generation of the Son is therefore eternal and timeless.[117]
##The synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy was further incorporated in the trinitarian formulas that appeared by the end of the 3rd century. "The Greek philosophical theology" was "developed during the Trinitarian controversies over the relationships among the persons of the Godhead."[118] Some assert that this incorporation was well known during the 3rd century, because the allegation of borrowing was raised by some disputants when the Nicene doctrine was being formalized and adopted by the bishops. For example, in the 4th century, Marcellus of Ancyra, who taught the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person (hypostasis), said in his On the Holy Church, 9:
"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato."[119]

Christian groups[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011)
##American Unitarian Conference
##Arianism
##Assemblies of Yahweh
##Bible Students
##Christadelphians
##Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[120][121]
##The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
##Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
##Doukhobors
##Friends of Man
##Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
##Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
##Jehovah's Witnesses
##Members Church of God International
##Molokan
##Monarchianism
##Muggletonianism
 ##New Church
##Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
##Oneness Pentecostals
##Polish Brethren
##Some Quakers
##Shakers
##Socinianism
##Swedenborgianism
##The Way International
##Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[122]
##Unification Church
##Unitarian Christians
##Unitarian Universalism
##United Church of God
##Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
##Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua

People[edit]


 This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011)
##Sabellius, ~220 (Modalist: the eponymous heresiarch of Sabellianism, or "monarchic modalism")
##Origen c. 230 (Ante-Nicene Father, subordinationist: considered the Son co-eternal with God, subject to the Father's will, but not inferior in essence)[123]
##Paul of Samosata, 269
##Arius, 336, bishop and presbyter of Alexandria, major theologian of doctrine in 4th century, Arianism. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, which emphasized the Father's divinity over the Son,[124] and his opposition to co-equal or Athanasian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicea, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 325.
##Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, baptized Roman Emperor Constantine the Great
##Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
##Antipope Felix II, 365
##Aëtius, 367
##Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
##Priscillian, 385, considered first Christian to be executed for heresy
##Muhammad, 632, see also Islamic view of Jesus, tawhid
##Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
##Michael Servetus, 1553, burned at the stake in Geneva under John Calvin
##Sebastian Castellio, 1563
##Ferenc Dávid, 1579
##Justus Velsius, c. 1581
##Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
##John Biddle, 1662
##John Milton (poet), c. 1674[citation needed]
##Thomas Aikenhead, 1697, last person to be hanged for blasphemy in Britain
##John Locke, 1704[125]
##Isaac Newton did not believe in Trinitarianism as documented in a letter to a friend, now preserved in The New College Library in Oxford, UK, Manuscript 361(4), Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 1: ff. 1-41).[125] He listed "worshipping Christ as God" in a list of "Idolatria" in his theological notebook.[126] However, he never made a public declaration of his anti-trinitarian beliefs for fear of losing his position.[127]
 ##William Whiston, 1752, expelled from University of Cambridge in 1710 for Arianism; famous for translating Josephus
##Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
##Emanuel Swedenborg, 1772, eponymous founder of Swedenborgianism.
##Benjamin Franklin, 1790, Deist[citation needed]
##Joseph Priestley, 1804
##Joseph Smith, 1805, monolatrist, founder of the Latter-day Saint movement (Mormonism)
##Thomas Paine, 1809[citation needed]
##Mary Baker Eddy, 1821, founder of Christian Science
##Thomas Jefferson, 1826, Deist[citation needed]
##James Madison, 1836, Deist[citation needed]
##William Ellery Channing, 1842
##Robert Hibbert, 1849
##John Thomas (Christadelphian), 1871
##Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
##Robert Roberts (Christadelphian), 1898
##Benjamin Wilson, 1900
##James Martineau, 1900
##Félix Manalo, 1914
##Charles Taze Russell, 1916, founder of the Bible Student movement and Jehovah's Witnesses, author of Millennial Dawn
##Eliseo Soriano, 1947
##William Branham, 1965
##Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, a Sabbatarian Christian Church, and was an advocate of the doctrine of Binitarianism.

See also[edit]
##Bibliotheca antitrinitariorum
##Consubstantiality
##Servetism
##Subordinationism
##Tawhid
##Unitarianism
##Urantia Foundation
##John 1:1
Notes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ The Trinity. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
2.^ Jump up to: a b c An Introduction to the New Testament for Catholics. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
3.Jump up ^ The Story of Christian Theology. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
4.Jump up ^ A Short History of Christian Doctrine. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
5.Jump up ^ Constantinople and the West. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
6.Jump up ^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
7.Jump up ^ "Theodosius I". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
8.Jump up ^ http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-33
9.Jump up ^ "Albigensian Crusade". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
10.Jump up ^ http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=938690
11.Jump up ^ von Harnack, Adolf (1894-03-01). "History of Dogma". Retrieved 2007-06-15. "[In the 2nd century,] Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptionist Christology); or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology)"
12.Jump up ^ Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Present Day, Prince Press, 1984, Vol. 1, pp. 159-161• Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, The University of Chicago Press, 1971, Vol. 1, pp. 181-199
13.Jump up ^ Encyclopædia Britannica 1942 edition p.634 "Christianity"
14.Jump up ^ "HISTORY OF ARIANISM". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
15.^ Jump up to: a b David K. Bernard, Oneness and Trinity A.D. 100-300 - The Doctrine of God and Ancient Christian Writings - Word Aflame Press, Hazelwood Montana, 1991, p. 156.
16.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Protestantism, page 474, J. Gordon Melton, 2005: "... for his many departures from traditional Christian and Protestant affirmations including the Trinity and the deity of Christ. ... 1 (1886; reprint , Rutherford, NJ: Dawn Bible Students Association, nd)"
17.^ Jump up to: a b Watch Tower, October 1881, Watch Tower Reprints page 290 As Retrieved 2009-09-23, page 4, ""He gave his only begotten Son." This phraseology brings us into conflict with an old Babylonian theory, viz.: Trinitarianism. If that doctrine is true, how could there be any Son to give? A begotten Son, too? Impossible. If these three are one, did God send himself? And how could Jesus say: "My Father is greater than I." John 14:28. [emphasis retained from original]"
18.Jump up ^ Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, July 1882, Reprints 370, page 3.
19.Jump up ^ Flint, James; Deb Flint. One God or a Trinity?. Hyderabad: Printland Publishers. ISBN 81-87409-61-4.
20.Jump up ^ Pearce, Fred. Jesus: God the Son or Son of God? Does the Bible Teach the Trinity?. Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association Ltd (UK). p. 8.
21.Jump up ^ Tennant, Harry. The Holy Spirit: Bible Understanding of God's Power. Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian Magazine and Publishing Association Ltd (UK).
22.^ Jump up to: a b Broughton, James H.; Peter J Southgate. The Trinity: True or False?. UK: The Dawn Book Supply.
23.Jump up ^ Nelson's guide to denominations J. Gordon Melton - 2007 "Later in the century, various leaders also began to express doubts about the Trinity, and a spectrum of opinion emerged. ... Still others, such as the Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith) specifically denied the Trinity ..."
24.Jump up ^ Manalo, Eraño G., Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) (Iglesia ni Cristo; Manila 1989)
25.Jump up ^ The Watchtower: 23. January 15, 1992. Missing or empty |title= (help)
26.Jump up ^ Insight on the Scriptures 2. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 1988. pp. 393–394.
27.Jump up ^ Should You Believe in the Trinity?. Watch Tower Society. p. 20.
28.Jump up ^ Holland, Jeffrey R. "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent". Retrieved 29 November 2013.
29.^ Jump up to: a b "Arianism". Southern Grace Church. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
30.^ Jump up to: a b c "Arianism". New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
31.^ Jump up to: a b "What is Arianism?". Unity in the Body of Christ. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
32.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ: Firstborn in the Spirit". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
33.^ Jump up to: a b "Jesus Christ: Overview". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
34.^ Jump up to: a b "Arianism". Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
35.Jump up ^ "Are Mormons Arians?". Retrieved 29 November 2013.
36.Jump up ^ "God the Father: Overview". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
37.Jump up ^ "First Vision". Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
38.Jump up ^ "What is Arianism?". The Arian Catholic Church. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
39.Jump up ^ "'The Glory of God Is Intelligence' - Lesson 37: Section 93", Doctrine and Covenants Instructor's Guide: Religion 324-325 (PDF), Institutes of Religion, Church Educational System, 1981, pp. 73–74, archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-11-12
40.Jump up ^ "The Oneness of God". Archived from the original on 16 February 2008. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
41.Jump up ^ Patrick Zukeran - Judaism - Judaism Today. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
42.Jump up ^ The Trinity and Deity of Jesus: What the Bible Really Teaches - Retrieved 21 June 2013.
43.^ Jump up to: a b TRINITY: Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
44.Jump up ^ Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians
45.Jump up ^ "In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment." - Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians. Athanasius (23 January 2010). "Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians". Fourth Century Christianity. Wisconsin Lutheran College. Retrieved 2 May 2012.
46.Jump up ^ Getting to Know the Church Fathers. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
47.Jump up ^ Encyclopedia of Barbarian Europe. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
48.Jump up ^ Early Controversies and the Growth of Christianity. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
49.Jump up ^ "NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
50.Jump up ^ Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (Random House, 2003), n.p.
51.Jump up ^ "NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters". Ccel.org. 13 July 2005. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
52.Jump up ^ David Bernard's The Oneness of God, Word Aflame Press, 1983, ISBN 0-912315-12-1. pgs 264-274.
53.Jump up ^ Wells, H. G. (n.d.). The Outline of History: being a plain history of life and mankind. Forgotten Books 2. London, UK: The Waverley Book Company. p. 284.
54.Jump up ^ W. Fulton, ”Trinity”, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, T. & T. Clark, 1921, Vol. 12, p. 459.
55.Jump up ^ Unitarians face a new age: the report of the Commission of Appraisal. American Unitarian Association. ed. Frederick May Eliot, Harlan Paul Douglass - 1936 "Chapter III CHURCH GROWTH AND DECLINE DURING THE LAST DECADE Year Book data permit the calculation of growth or decline in membership for 297 Unitarian churches which existed throughout the last decade and ..."
56.Jump up ^ Charles Lippy Faith in America: Changes, Challenges, New Directions p2 2006 "However, when the national interest in novel religious forms waned by the mid- nineteenth century, Unitarianism and Universalism began to decline.2 For the vast majority of religious bodies in America, growth continued unabated;"
57.^ Jump up to: a b The Apostles' Creed. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
58.Jump up ^ New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Volume XIV p.299
59.Jump up ^ John Macquarrie, "Trinity," Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved on March 31, 2008.
60.Jump up ^ "Trinity," Encyclopædia Britannica 2004 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. Retrieved on March 31, 2008.
61.Jump up ^ Jouette M. Bassler, "God in the NT", The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Doubleday, New York 1992, 2:1055.
62.Jump up ^ "Theological Studies" (PDF). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
63.Jump up ^ Reasoning from Scriptures, Watch Tower bible and tract society page 411 para 4
64.Jump up ^ The Gospel According to John. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
65.Jump up ^ John (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
66.Jump up ^ Earl Radmacher, Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson Inc. 1999) ISBN 978-1-4185-8734-5
67.Jump up ^ Commentary on John (Commentary on the New Testament Book #4). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
68.^ Jump up to: a b Patrick Navas - Divine Truth Or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration Of The Orthodox Doctrine Of The Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures - AuthorHouse, 2007, 2011 - p 267.
69.Jump up ^ JOHN 1:1c: "God," "divine" or "a god" ? - onlytrugod.org. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
70.^ Jump up to: a b Kaiser, Dr. Christopher B., The Doctrine of God, A Historical Survey - Foundations For Faith - Westchester: Crossway Books, 1982, p. 31.
71.Jump up ^ The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press. 2005. ISBN 9780737501117.
72.^ Jump up to: a b http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Linguistic/HL/1-A/-elohiym.htm
73.Jump up ^ "Strong's Hebrew: 430. אֱלֹהִים (elohim) -- God, god". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
74.Jump up ^ http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430
75.Jump up ^ "2 Corinthians 13:14 – Trinity? - The Son of Jehovah". The Son of Jehovah. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
76.Jump up ^ Philippians 2:5-6
77.Jump up ^ Philippians 2:5-6
78.Jump up ^ "ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION NO. 4 - ROBBERY - Going to Jesus.com". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
79.Jump up ^ Is God a Trinity?. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
80.Jump up ^ "The Chalcedonian Definition". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
81.Jump up ^ The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity, by P.F. Beatrice, Church History, Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church History, Vol. 71, No. 2, (Jun., 2002), pp. 243-272. (retrieved @ noemon.net)[dead link]
82.Jump up ^ "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible". CARM - The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
83.Jump up ^ The Voice... Retrieved 5 March 2015.
84.Jump up ^ "Institute for Religious Research - The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity - Introduction". Institute for Religious Research. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
85.Jump up ^ The Unitarian: a monthly magazine of liberal Christianity ed. Jabez Thomas Sunderland, Brooke Herford, Frederick B. Mott - 1893 "We believe in the Holy Spirit, man's sole reliance for guidance, safety, or salvation, not as a separate person, entity, reality, or consciousness, existent apart from man or God, but as the recognizing sympathetic inter-communication in love between God and the human soul, the direct converse or communion of man's consciousness with Deity."
86.^ Jump up to: a b "Is the Holy Spirit a Person?". Awake!: 14–15. July 2006. "In the Bible, God’s Holy Spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s active force.”"
87.Jump up ^ "Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?", Should You Believe in the Trinity?, ©1989 Watch Tower, p. 7.
88.Jump up ^ Who and What Is God? - Mystery of the Ages - Herbert W. Armstrong. Retrieved 19 May 2012.
89.Jump up ^ Peter Althouse Spirit of the last days: Pentecostal eschatology in conversation p12 2003 "The Oneness Pentecostal stream follows in the steps of the Reformed stream, but has a modalistic view of the Godhead"
90.Jump up ^ See under heading "The Father is the Holy Ghost" in David Bernard, The Oneness of God, Chapter 6.
91.Jump up ^ See also David Bernard, A Handbook of Basic Doctrines, Word Aflame Press, 1988.
92.Jump up ^ See under "The Lord God and His Spirit," in Chapter 7 of David Bernard, The Oneness of God.
93.Jump up ^ Wilson, Jerry A. (1992). "Holy Spirit". In Ludlow, Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Mcmillan. p. 651. ISBN 0-02-904040-X. "The Holy Spirit is a term often used to refer to the Holy Ghost. In such cases the Holy Spirit is a personage.""
94.Jump up ^ McConkie, Joseph Fielding (1992). "Holy Ghost". In Ludlow editor-first= Daniel H. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Mcmillan. p. 649. ISBN 0-02-904040-X.
95.Jump up ^ D&C 131:7-8 ("There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.")
96.^ Jump up to: a b D&C 130:22.
97.Jump up ^ Romney, Marion G. (May 1974), "The Holy Ghost", Ensign
98.^ Jump up to: a b Millennial Star XII. October 15, 1850. pp. 305–309. Retrieved March 30, 2011.
99.Jump up ^ "Basic Beliefs Articles of Faith and Practice". Church of Christ. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
100.Jump up ^ Alan Unterman and Rivka Horowitz,Ruah ha-Kodesh, Encyclopedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition, Jerusalem: Judaica Multimedia/Keter, 1997).
101.Jump up ^ http://www.unitypaloalto.org/beliefs/twenty_questions.html[dead link]
102.Jump up ^ The Holy Qur'an. 4:171.
103.Jump up ^ HINDU TRINITY Lord Brahma | Lord Vishnu | Lord Shiva - Rudra Centre - Retrieved 26 March 2014
104.Jump up ^ E. Washburn Hopkins - ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF RELIGION - THE HINDU TRINITY - urantia-book.org. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
105.Jump up ^ Rudolf V. D'Souza (1996). The Bhagavadgītā and St. John of the Cross: A Comparative Study of the Dynamism of Spiritual Growth in the Process of God-realisation. Gregorian Biblical. p. 340.
106.Jump up ^ 'At times he forms one of a trinity in unity, with Ra and Osiris, as in Fig. 87, a god with the two sceptres of Osiris, the hawk's head of Horus, and the sun of Ra. This is the god described to Eusebius, who tells us that when the oracle was consulted about the divine nature, by those who wished to understand this complicated mythology, it had answered, "I am Apollo and Lord and Bacchus," or, to use the Egyptian names, "I am Ra and Horus and Osiris." Another god, in the form of a porcelain idol to be worn as a charm, shows us Horus as one of a trinity in unity, in name, at least, agreeing with that afterwards adopted by the Christians--namely, the Great God, the Son God, and the Spirit God.'—Samuel Sharpe, Egyptian Mythology and Egyptian Christianity, 1863, pp. 89-90.
107.Jump up ^ "How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity". United Church of God. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
108.Jump up ^ Michael Barber - Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity? - Universal-Publishers, Nov 1, 2006 - Part Three - Page 78.
109.Jump up ^ "Περί Ουρανού/1". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
110.Jump up ^ "ARISTOTE : Traité du Ciel (livre I - texte grec)". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
111.Jump up ^ Bekker edition of Aristotle's works, volume II, p. 211
112.Jump up ^ The Philosophical Review, Vol. 108, No. 2 (April 1999), p. 285
113.Jump up ^ Plato's Magnesia and Philosophical Polities in Magna Graecia. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
114.Jump up ^ "The Internet Classics Archive - On the Heavens by Aristotle". Retrieved 5 March 2015.
115.Jump up ^ Phaedo (Second Edition). Retrieved 5 March 2015.
116.Jump up ^ Course of Ideas, pp 387-8.
117.Jump up ^ Select Treatises of St. Athanasius - In Controversy With the Arians - Freely Translated by John Henry Cardinal Newmann - Longmans, Green, and Co., 1911
118.Jump up ^ A. Hilary Armstrong, Henry J. Blumenthal, Platonism. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD.
119.Jump up ^ Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95
120.Jump up ^ Neusner, Jacob, ed. 2009. World Religions in America: An Introduction, Fourth Ed. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, p. 257. ISBN 978-0-664-23320-4
121.Jump up ^ Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. 1998. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects and Cults, Revised Ed. New York, New York: Rosen Publishing Group, p. 73. ISBN 0-8239-2586-2
122.Jump up ^ Walker, James K. (2007). The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers. pp. 117–118. ISBN 978-0-7369-2011-7
123.Jump up ^ Whether Origen taught a doctrine of God that was or was not reconcilable with later Nicene Christianity is a matter of debate (Cf. ANF Vol 4), although many of his other views, such as on metempsychosis, were rejected. Origen was an economic subordinationist according to the editors of ANF, believing in the co-eternal aspect of God the Son but asserting that God the Son never commanded the Father, and only obeyed. This view is compatible with Nicene theology (as it is not held by Nicene Christians that the Son or Holy Spirit can command the Father), notwithstanding any other doctrines Origen held.
124.Jump up ^ Williams, Rowan (2002) [1987]. Arius (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans. p. 98. ISBN 0-8028-4969-5.
125.^ Jump up to: a b Avery Cardinal Dulles. The Deist Minimum. 2005.
126.Jump up ^ Pfizenmaier, T.C., "Was Isaac Newton an Arian?" Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997.
127.Jump up ^ Snobelen, Stephen D. (1999). "Isaac Newton, heretic : the strategies of a Nicodemite" (PDF). British Journal for the History of Science 32 (4): 381–419. doi:10.1017/S0007087499003751.
Further reading[edit]
##Tuggy, Dale (Summer 2014), "History of Trinitarian Doctrines", Trinity, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
External links[edit]


 This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (June 2012)
##Five Major Problems With The Trinity 21st Century Reformation by Dan J. Gill
##The Trinity: True or False? by James H. Broughton & Peter J Southgate
##The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
##An investigation of the trinity of Plato and of Philo Judaeus, and of the effects which an attachment to their writings had upon the principles and reasonings of the father of the Christian church, by Caesar Morgan, Cambridge University Press, 1853.
##Antitrinitarian Biography; or, Sketches of the lives and writings of distinguished antitrinitarians, exhibiting a view of the state of the Unitarian doctrine and worship in the principal nations of Europe, from the reformation to the close of the seventeenth century, to which is prefixed a history of Unitarianism in England during the same period, Robert Wallace, 1850.


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity


Jesus
Christ ·
 Jesus in Christianity ·
 Virgin birth ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection ·
 Son of God
 
Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.


Foundations
Church ·
 Creed ·
 Gospel ·
 New Covenant
 

Bible
Books ·
 Canon ·
 Old Testament ·
 New Testament
 

Theology
God  (Father ·
 Son ·
 Holy Spirit)
   ·
 Apologetics ·
 Baptism ·
 Catholicism ·
 Christology ·
 History of theology ·
 Mission ·
 Salvation ·
 Trinity
 


History and
tradition

Apostles ·
 Mary ·
 Peter ·
 Paul ·
 Fathers ·
 Early ·
 Constantine ·
 Ecumenical councils ·
 Augustine ·
 East–West Schism ·
 Crusades ·
 Aquinas ·
 Protestant Reformation ·
 Luther
 


Denominations
 and movements
 (List)



Western

Adventist ·
 Anabaptists ·
 Anglican ·
 Baptists ·
 Calvinist ·
 Charismatic ·
 Evangelical ·
 Holiness ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Pentecostal ·
 Protestant ·
 Roman Catholic
 


Eastern

Eastern Orthodox ·
 Eastern Catholic ·
 Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) ·
 Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian)
 


Nontrinitarian

Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Latter Day Saint movement ·
 Oneness Pentecostalism
 


Related topics
Art ·
 Criticism ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Liturgy ·
 Music ·
 Other religions ·
 Prayer ·
 Sermon ·
 Symbolism
 

CategoryCategory ·
 Portal icon Christianity portal ·
 WikiProjectWikiProject
 

  


Categories: Nontrinitarianism
Christianity-related controversies
Unitarianism
Schisms in Christianity
Christian terminology




































Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Français
한국어
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Kiswahili
Lietuvių
മലയാളം
Nederlands
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Tagalog
தமிழ்
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 30 April 2015, at 20:32.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism









Early Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is a description of early Christianity itself. For an overview of early Christian history, see Early history of Christianity.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd


Jesus ·
 Christ
 [hide]
Jesus in Christianity ·
 Virgin birth ·
 Ministry ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection
 


Bible ·
 Foundations
 [hide]
Old Testament ·
 New Testament ·
 Gospel ·
 Canon ·
 Books ·
 Church ·
 Creed ·
 New Covenant
 

Theology[hide]

God ·
 Trinity  (Father ·
 Son ·
 Holy Spirit)
 

Apologetics ·
 Baptism ·
 Catholicism ·
 Christology ·
 History of theology ·
 Mission ·
 Salvation
 


History ·
 Tradition
 [hide]
Mary ·
 Apostles ·
 Peter ·
 Paul ·
 Fathers ·
 Early Christianity ·
 Constantine ·
 Councils ·
 Augustine ·
 East–West Schism ·
 Crusades ·
 Aquinas ·
 Reformation ·
 Luther
 

Related topics[hide]

Art ·
 Holidays (list) ·
 Criticism ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Liturgy ·
 Music ·
 Other religions ·
 Prayer ·
 Sermon ·
 Symbolism
 


Denominations ·
 Groups
 [hide]

Western
Adventist ·
 Anabaptist ·
 Anglican ·
 Baptist ·
 Calvinist ·
 Catholic ·
 Evangelical ·
 Holiness ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Protestant ·
 Pentecostal
 
Eastern
Eastern Orthodox ·
 Eastern Catholic ·
 Oriental Orthodox ·
 Assyrian
 
Nontrinitarian
Jehovah's Witness ·
 Latter Day Saint ·
 Oneness Pentecostal
 

Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Christian mysticism
"Universal Man", an illumination from a 13th-century copy of Hildegard von Bingen's Liber Divinorum Operum ("Book of Divine Works", c. 1165).
Mysticism ·
 Catholic spirituality
 

Theologies · Philosophies[show]








Practices[show]








People
by era or century



Early Christianity[show]





Desert Fathers[show]













11th · 12th[show]






13th · 14th[show]







































15th · 16th[show]
















17th · 18th[show]

















19th[show]











20th[show]












Contemporary Papal views[show]




v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Early Christianity is the period of Christianity preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It is typically divided into the Apostolic Age and the Ante-Nicene Period (from the Apostolic Age until Nicea).
The first Christians, as described in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, were all Jewish, either by birth, or conversion for which the biblical term proselyte is used,[1] and referred to by historians as the Jewish Christians. The early Gospel message was spread orally; probably in Aramaic,[2] but almost immediately also in Greek.[3] The New Testament's Book of Acts and Epistle to the Galatians record that the first Christian community was centered in Jerusalem and its leaders included Peter, James, and John.[4] Paul of Tarsus, after his conversion to Christianity, claimed the title of "Apostle to the Gentiles". Paul's influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament authors.[5] By the end of the 1st century, Christianity began to be recognized internally and externally as a separate religion from Judaism which itself was refined and developed further in the centuries after the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple.
Numerous quotations in the New Testament and other Christian writings of the 1st centuries, indicate that early Christians generally used and revered the Jewish Bible (the Tanakh) as Scripture, mostly in the Greek (Septuagint) or Aramaic (Targum) translations.[6]
As the New Testament canon developed, the Letters of Paul, the canonical gospels and various other works were also recognized as scripture to be read in church. Paul's letters, especially Romans, established a theology based on Christ rather than on the Mosaic Law, but most Christian denominations today still consider the "moral prescriptions" of the Mosaic Law, such as the Ten Commandments, Great Commandment, and Golden Rule, to be relevant. Early Christians demonstrated a wide range of beliefs and practices, many of which were later denounced as heretical.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Practices 2.1 Baptism
2.2 Organization
2.3 Sabbath
2.4 Women
2.5 Community
3 Beliefs 3.1 Christology 3.1.1 Divinity of Christ
3.2 Eschatology
4 Ecclesiology
5 Orthodoxy and heterodoxy
6 Religious writing 6.1 Defining scripture
6.2 Fathers of the church 6.2.1 Apostolic Fathers

7 Spread of Christianity
8 See also
9 References 9.1 Citations
9.2 Bibliography
10 External links

History[edit]
Main article: History of early Christianity
The earliest followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic, Second Temple Jewish sect, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. The first part of the period, during the lifetimes of the Twelve Apostles, is called the Apostolic Age. In line with the Great Commission attributed to the resurrected Jesus, the Apostles are said to have dispersed from Jerusalem, and the missionary activity spread Christianity to cities throughout the Hellenistic world and even beyond the Roman Empire. Though Paul's influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament author,[5] the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed.
Early Christians suffered sporadic persecution as the result of local pagan populations putting pressure on the imperial authorities to take action against the Christians in their midst, who were thought to bring misfortune by their refusal to honour the gods.[7][8] Persecution was on the rise in Asia Minor towards the end of the 1st century,[9] and in 111 AD the emperor Trajan issued regulations about the conduct of trials of Christians under the Roman governor of the area.[10] The first action taken against Christians by the order of an emperor occurred half a century earlier under Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.[8]
During the Ante-Nicene period following the Apostolic Age, a great diversity of views emerged simultaneously with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period. Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh rejection of Judaism and Jewish practices. Early Christianity gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries and established itself as a predominantly gentile religion in the Roman Empire.
According to Will Durant, the Christian Church prevailed over paganism because it offered a much more attractive doctrine and because the church leaders addressed human needs better than their rivals.[11]
Practices[edit]
From the writings of early Christians, historians have tried to piece together an understanding of various early Christian practices including worship services, customs and observances. Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr (100 – 165) described these practices.
Baptism[edit]
Main article: Baptism in early Christianity
Early Christian beliefs regarding baptism probably predate the New Testament writings. It seems certain that numerous Jewish sects and certainly Jesus and his disciples practised baptism, which became integral to nearly every manifestation of the religion of the Jews. John the Baptist had baptized many people before baptisms took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Many of the interpretations that would later become orthodox Christian beliefs concerning baptism can be traced to apostles such as Paul, who likened baptism to being buried with Christ in his death (Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12). On the basis of this description, it was supposed by some modern theologians that the early Christians practised baptism by submersion (Matthew 3:13-17). This interpretation is debated between those Christian denominations who advocate immersion baptism exclusively and those who practice baptism by affusion or aspersion as well as by immersion. Yet the Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings on liturgical practices, mentions that baptism may occur by pouring water on the head three times using the trinitarian formula (i.e., in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).
Infant baptism was widely practised at least by the 3rd century,[5] but it is disputed whether it was in the first centuries of Christianity. Some believe that the Church in the apostolic period practised infant baptism, arguing that the mention of the baptism of households in the Acts of the Apostles would have included children within the household.[12] Others believe that infants were excluded from the baptism of households, citing verses of the Bible that describe the baptized households as believing, which infants are incapable of doing.[12] In the 2nd century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, may have referred to it.[5][13][14] Additionally, Justin Martyr wrote about baptism in First Apology (written in the mid-2nd century), describing it as a choice and contrasting it with the lack of choice one has in one's physical birth.[15] However, Justin Martyr also seems to imply elsewhere that believers were "disciples from childhood", indicating, perhaps, their baptism. The Bishop Polycarp, himself a disciple of the Apostle John, stated at his martyrdom (AD 168) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth as well. Joachim Jeremias concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. If his parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' support a baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years'... for which there is no evidence at all." The so-called Apostolic Tradition says to "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." If it was written by Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition could be dated about 215 AD, but recent scholars believe it to be material from separate sources ranging from the middle second to the fourth century,[16][17] being gathered and compiled on about 375-400 AD. The 3rd century evidence is clearer, with both Origen (calling infant baptism "according to the usage of the Church")[18] and Cyprian advocating the practice. Tertullian acknowledges the practice (and that sponsors would speak on behalf of the children), but, holding an unusual view of marriage, argues against it, on the grounds that baptism should be postponed until after marriage.[19]
Interpretation of the baptismal practices of the early church is important to groups such as Baptists, Anabaptists, and the churches of Christ who believe that infant baptism was a development that occurred during the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries. The early Christian writings mentioned above, which date from the 2nd and 3rd century indicate that Christians as early as the 2nd century did maintain such a practice.[20]
Organization[edit]
Christian groups and congregations first organized themselves loosely. In Paul's time, although certain decisions by Elders and Apostles were binding, as in the Council of Jerusalem,[21] there were no precisely delineated functions yet for bishops, elders, and deacons.[22] A Church hierarchy, however, seems to have developed by the late 1st century and early 2nd century[22] (see Pastoral Epistles, c 90 - 140[22]). These structures were certainly formalized well before the end of the Early Christian period, which concluded with the legalization of Christianity by Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313 and the holding of the First Council of Nicea in 325, when the title of Metropolitan bishop first appears.
In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy of clergy gradually took on the form of episkopoi (overseers), presbyteroi (elders),[23] and diakonoi (ministerial servants). This hierarchy emerged slowly and at different times for different locations. Clement, a 1st-century bishop of Rome, refers to the leaders of the Corinthian church in his epistle to Corinthians as bishops and presbyters interchangeably. The New Testament writers also use the terms "overseer" and "elder" interchangeably and as synonyms.[24] The Didache (dated by most scholars to the early 2nd century),[25] speaks of "appointing for yourself bishops and deacons".
Disputes regarding the proper titles and roles of church leaders would later become one of the major causes of schism within the Christian church.[citation needed] Such disputes include the roles of bishops and presbyters. Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox use the word "priest" of all the baptized, but apply it in a more specific sense ("ministerial priesthood")[26] to bishops and presbyters[27] and sometimes, somewhat loosely, treat "presbyter" and "priest" as synonyms,[28][29] applying both terms to clergy subordinate to bishops. In congregational churches, the title "priest" is rejected, keeping only "presbyter" or "elder". Some congregational churches do not include a role of bishop in their organizational polity.
Post-apostolic bishops of importance include Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome . These men reportedly knew and studied under the apostles personally and are therefore called Apostolic Fathers. Each Christian community also had presbyters, as was the case with Jewish communities, who were also ordained and assisted the bishop; as Christianity spread, especially in rural areas, the presbyters exercised more responsibilities and took distinctive shape as priests. Lastly, deacons also performed certain duties, such as tending to the poor and sick. In the 2nd century, an episcopal structure becomes more visible, and in that century this structure was supported by teaching on apostolic succession, where a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves.
By the end of the early Christian period, the church within the Roman Empire had hundreds of bishops, some of them (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, "other provinces") holding some form of jurisdiction over others.[30]
Jerusalem was the first church and an important church center up to 135.[31] The First Council of Nicaea recognized and confirmed the tradition by which Jerusalem continued to be given "special honour", but did not assign to it even metropolitan authority within its own province, still less the extraprovincial jurisdiction exercised by Rome and the other sees mentioned above.[32]
Constantinople came into prominence only after the early Christian period, being founded officially in 330, five years after the First Council of Nicaea, though the much smaller original city of Byzantium was an early center of Christianity largely due to its proximity to Anatolia.
Sabbath[edit]
See also: Sabbath in Christianity
According to Bauckham, the post-apostolic church contained diverse practices as regards the Sabbath.[33]
Women[edit]
Main article: Women in Christianity § Women in the New Testament Church
The attitude of the Church Fathers towards women paralleled rules in Jewish law regarding a woman's role in worship, although the early church allowed women to participate in worship - something that was not allowed in the Synagogue (where women were restricted to the outer court). The First Epistle to Timothy teaches that women should remain quiet during public worship and were not to instruct men or assume authority over them.[34] and the Deutero-Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians calls upon women to submit to the authority of their husbands.[35]
Elizabeth A. Clark says that the Church Fathers regarded women both as "God's good gift to men" and as "the curse of the world", both as "weak in both mind and character" and as people who "displayed dauntless courage, undertook prodigious feats of scholarship".[36]
The New Testament provides several examples of female leaders, including Phoebe (a deaconess, a Christian designated to serve with under the bishops and presbyters of the church in a variety of ways, in Corinth),[37] Priscilla (an early missionary and wife of Aquila)[38] and Lydia (who hosted a house church in the Asian city of Thyatira).[39][40] Though never ordained,[41][42] these women were very influential, and they are still venerated today.
Community[edit]
Early Christian congregations apparently provided members with a strong sense of community, with mutual religious and material support.[43]
Beliefs[edit]
Early Christian beliefs were based on the apostolic preaching (kerygma), considered to be preserved in tradition and in New Testament scripture, for parts of which scholars have posited dates as late as the third century, although it was then attributed to the Apostles themselves and their contemporaries, such as Mark and Luke.
Christology[edit]
Divinity of Christ[edit]
Main articles: Christology and Divinity of Christ
Most Christians identified Jesus as divine from a very early period, although holding a variety of competing views as to what exactly this implied.[44] Early Christian views tended to see Jesus as a unique agent of God;[45] by the Council of Nicaea in 325 he was identified as God in the fullest sense, being 'of the same substance, essence or being'.
Some of the 1st and 2nd-century texts that would later be canonized as the New Testament several times imply or indirectly refer to the divine character to Jesus, though there is scholarly debate as to whether or not they call him God[46] Within 15–20 years of the death of Jesus, Paul, who authored the largest early expositions of Christian theology, refers to Jesus as the resurrected "Son of God", the savior who would return from heaven and save his faithful, dead and living, from the imminent destruction of the world. The Synoptic Gospels describe him as the "Son of God", though the phrase "Son of Man" (always placed in the mouth of Jesus himself) is more frequently used in the Gospel of Mark; born of the Virgin Mary by the agency of the Holy Spirit, and who will return to judge the nations. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the human incarnation of the divine Word or "Logos" (see Jesus the Logos) and True Vine. It is believed that the Book of Revelation depicts Jesus as "the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (22:13), and applies similar terms to "the Lord God": "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'" (1:8).
The term "Logos" was used in Greek philosophy (see Heraclitus) and in Hellenistic Jewish religious writing (see Philo Judaeus of Alexandria) to mean the ultimate ordering principle of the universe. Those who rejected the identification of Jesus with the Logos, rejecting also the Gospel of John, were called Alogi (see also Monarchianism).[47][48]
Adoptionists, such as the Ebionites, considered him as at first an ordinary man, born to Joseph and Mary, who later became the Son of God at his baptism, his transfiguration, or his resurrection.[citation needed]
Eschatology[edit]
See also: Christian eschatology
Ecclesiology[edit]
Rodney Stark estimates that the number of Christians grew by approximately 40% a decade during the first and second centuries.[49] This phenomenal growth rate forced Christian communities to evolve in order to adapt to their changes in the nature of their communities as well as their relationship with their political and socioeconomic environment. As the number of Christians grew, the Christian communities became larger, more numerous and farther apart geographically. The passage of time also moved some Christians farther from the original teachings of the apostles giving rise to teachings that were considered heterodox and sowing controversy and divisiveness within churches and between churches.[50]
Roger Haight posits the development of ecclesiology in the form of "Early Catholicism" as one response to the problem of church unity. Thus, the solution to division arising from heterodox teaching was the development of "tighter and more standardized structures of ministry. One of these structures is the tri-partite form of church leadership consisting of bishops, elders and deacons that Ignatius of Antioch urged churches to adopt, writing that "You cannot have a church without these." Over the course of the second century, this organizational structure became universal and continues to be used in the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches as well as in some Protestant denominations.[50]
Despite its mention of bishops, there is no clear evidence in the New Testament that supports the concepts of dioceses and monepiscopacy (i.e. the rule that all the churches in a geographic area should be ruled by a single bishop). Scholars point to evidence that Christian communities such as Rome had many bishops and that the concept of monepiscopacy was still emerging when Ignatius was urging his tri-partite structure on other churches.[51]
Robert Williams posits that the "origin and earliest development of episcopacy and monepiscopacy and the ecclesiastical concept of (apostolic) succession were associated with crisis situations in the early church."[52]
Orthodoxy and heterodoxy[edit]
Main article: Diversity in early Christian theology
The proto-orthodox church had a dichotomy for teachings; they were either orthodox or heterodox. Orthodox teachings were those that had the authentic lineage of Holy Tradition. All other teachings were viewed as deviant streams of thought and were possibly heretical. An important discussion in the past century among scholars of early Christianity is to what extent it is still appropriate to speak of "orthodoxy" and "heresy". Higher criticism drastically altered the previous perception that heresy was a very rare exception to the orthodoxy. Some orthodox scholars argue against the increasing focus on heterodoxy. A movement away from presuming the correctness or dominance of the orthodoxy is seen as understandable, in light of modern approaches. However, these orthodox scholars feel that instead of an even and neutral approach to historical analysis that the heterodox sects are given an assumption of superiority over the orthodox movement.[53]
Religious writing[edit]
See also: List of early Christian writers and List of early Christian texts of disputed authorship
Early Christians wrote many religious works, some of which were later canonized as the New Testament of today.
Defining scripture[edit]
Main article: Development of the Christian Biblical canon
Debates about scripture were underway in the mid-2nd century, concurrent with a drastic increase of new scriptures, both Jewish and Christian. Debates regarding practice and belief gradually became reliant on the use of scripture other than what Melito referred to as the Old Testament, as the New Testament canon developed. Similarly, in the 3rd century a shift away from direct revelation as a source of authority occurred, most notably against the Montanists. "Scripture" still had a broad meaning and usually referred to the Septuagint among Greek speakers or the Targums among Aramaic speakers or the Vetus Latina translations in Carthage. Beyond the Torah (the Law) and some of the earliest prophetic works (the Prophets), there was not agreement on the canon, but this was not debated much at first. By the mid-2nd century, tensions arose with the split of early Christianity and Judaism, which some theorize led eventually to the determination of a Jewish canon by the emerging rabbinic movement,[54] though, even as of today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. For example some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier, by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-137 BC).[55]
A problem for scholars is that there is a lack of direct evidence on when Christians began accepting their own scriptures alongside the Septuagint. Well into the 2nd century Christians held onto a strong preference for oral tradition as clearly demonstrated by writers of the time, such as Papias.[54]
Koine Greek spread all over the Empire, even up the Rhone valley of Gaul; Roman satirists complained that even Rome had become a Greek city. Thus the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) was the dominant translation (even the Peshitta appears to be influenced[56]). Later Jerome would express his preference for adhering strictly to the Hebrew text and canon, but his view held little currency even in his own day. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that substantial numbers of Christians began to reject those books of the Septuagint which are not found in the Jewish Masoretic Text, referring to them as biblical apocrypha. In addition, some New Testament books were also disputed, known as the Antilegomena.
Fathers of the church[edit]
Main article: Church Fathers
Since the end of the 4th century, the title "Fathers of the Church" has been used to refer to a more or less clearly defined group of ecclesiastical writers who are appealed to as authorities on doctrinal matters. Orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life, approval by the Church and antiquity are traditionally considered conditions for classification as a Father of the Church, but modern writers sometimes include Tertullian, Origen and a few others.[57]
Apostolic Fathers[edit]



 St. Clement I was an Apostolic Father.
See also: Apostolic Fathers
The earliest Christian writings (other than those collected in the New Testament) are a group of letters credited to the Apostolic Fathers. These include the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement, as well as the Didache. Taken as a whole, the collection is notable for its literary simplicity, religious zeal and lack of Hellenistic philosophy or rhetoric. Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch (died 98 to 117) advocated the authority of the apostolic episcopacy (bishops).[58]
Spread of Christianity[edit]




  Spread of Christianity to AD 325
  Spread of Christianity to AD 600
Main article: Early centers of Christianity
Early Christianity spread from city to city throughout the Hellenized Roman Empire and beyond into East Africa and South Asia. The Christian Apostles, said to have dispersed from Jerusalem, traveled extensively and established communities in major cities and regions throughout the Empire. The original church communities were founded in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Armenia, Caucasian Albania, Arabia, Greece, and other places.[59][60][61] by apostles (see Apostolic see) and other Christian soldiers, merchants, and preachers.[62] Over forty were established by the year 100,[60][61] many in Asia Minor, such as the seven churches of Asia. By the end of the 1st century, Christianity had spread to Greece and Italy, even India.
In 301 AD, the Kingdom of Armenia became the first state to declare Christianity as its official religion, following the conversion of the Royal House of the Arsacids in Armenia. The Armenian Apostolic Church is the world's oldest national church.
Despite sometimes intense persecutions, the Christian religion continued its spread throughout the Mediterranean Basin.[63]
There is no agreement on an explanation of how Christianity managed to spread so successfully prior to the Edict of Milan. For some Christians, the success was simply the natural consequence of the truth of the religion and the direct intervention of God. However, similar explanations are claimed for the spread of, for instance, Islam and Buddhism. In The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark argues that Christianity triumphed over paganism chiefly because it improved the lives of its adherents in various ways.[64] Another factor, more recently pointed out, was the way in which Christianity combined its promise of a general resurrection of the dead with the traditional Greek belief that true immortality depended on the survival of the body, with Christianity adding practical explanations of how this was going to actually happen at the end of the world.[65] For Mosheim the rapid progression of Christianity was explained by two factors: translations of the New Testament and the Apologies composed in defence of Christianity.[66] Edward Gibbon, in his classic The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, discusses the topic in considerable detail in his famous Chapter Fifteen, summarizing the historical causes of the early success of Christianity as follows: "(1) The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses. (2) The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth. (3) The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church. (4) The pure and austere morals of the Christians. (5) The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire."[67]
See also[edit]
##Ante-Nicene Fathers
##Catholicism
##Christian primitivism
##Christianity in the 1st century
##Christianity in the 2nd century
##Christianity in the 3rd century
##Christian Torah-submission
##Constantine I and Christianity
##Constantinian shift
##Early Christian art and architecture
##Great Church
##History of Christianity
##Orthodox Christianity
##Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
##Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
##Restorationism
##Society for the Study of Early Christianity
##State church of the Roman Empire
References[edit]
Citations[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Proselyte: "The English term "proselyte" occurs only in the New Testament where it signifies a convert to the Jewish religion (Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; etc.), though the same Greek word is commonly used in the Septuagint to designate a foreigner living in Palestine. Thus the term seems to have passed from an original local and chiefly political sense, in which it was used as early as 300 B.C., to a technical and religious meaning in the Judaism of the New Testament epoch."
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, pp 87- 90.
3.Jump up ^ Jaeger, Werner (1961). Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Harvard University Press. pp. 6, 108–109. ISBN 9780674220522. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
4.Jump up ^ Galatians 2:9, Acts 1:13; See Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles for details
5.^ Jump up to: a b c d Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. F.L. Lucas (Oxford) entry on Paul
6.Jump up ^ [1] How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth - Gordon D. Fee - Douglas Stuart - Harper Collins Publishing
7.Jump up ^ "As the existence of the Christians became more widely known, it became increasingly clear that they were (a) antisocial, in that they did not participate in the normal social life of their communities; (b) sacrilegious, in that they refused to worship the gods; and (c) dangerous, in that the gods did not take kindly to communities that harbored those who failed to offer them cult. By the end of the second century, the Christian apologist (literally, 'defender' of the faith) Tertullian complained about the widespread perception that Christians were the source of all disasters brought against the human race by the gods. 'They think the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, "Away with the Christians to the lion!"' (Apology 40)" - Bart D. Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford University Press 2004 ISBN 978-0-19-536934-2), pp. 313–314
8.^ Jump up to: a b de Ste. Croix, Geoffrey Ernest Maurice. "Why Were Early Christians Persecuted?". Past & Present, No. 26 (Nov., 1963), pp. 105–152.
9.Jump up ^ Ehrman 2004, p. 318 - "If the letter [1 Peter] is indeed associated with Asia Minor, as its prescript suggests, it should probably be assigned to the first century, possibly near its end, when persecution of the Christians was on the rise"
10.Jump up ^ John Granger Cook, Roman Attitudes Towards the Christians (Mohr Siebeck 2011 ISBN 978-3-16150954-4), pp. 138ff.
11.Jump up ^ Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972
12.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Wagner, Christianity for Dummies (John Wiley & Sons 2011 ISBN 978-1-11806901-1)
13.Jump up ^ "He (Jesus) came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God and children, infants, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Adversus Haereses, ii, 22, 4)
14.Jump up ^ Paul King Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, (Eerdmans 1978), page 127.
15.Jump up ^ "Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there 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.""The First Apology, Chapter 61". New Advent. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
16.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, Paul F. (2002). The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN 978-0-19-521732-2.
17.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, Paul; Johnson, Maxwell E.; Philips, L. Edwards (2002). The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-6046-8.
18.Jump up ^ Homilies on Leviticus 8.3.11; Commentary on Romans 5.9; and Homily on Luke 14.5
19.Jump up ^ "The delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary ... that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? ... For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred - in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom - until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence" (On Baptism 18).
20.Jump up ^ "The Didache, representing practice perhaps as early as the beginning of the second century, probably in Syria, also assumes immersion to be normal, but it allows that if sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, water may be poured three times over the head. The latter must have been a frequent arrangement, for it corresponds with most early artistic depictions of baptism, in Roman catacombs and on sarcophagi of the third century and later. The earliest identifiable Christian meeting house known to us, at Dura Europos on the Euphrates, contained a baptismal basin too shallow for immersion. Obviously local practice varied, and practicality will often have trumped whatever desire leaders may have felt to make action mime metaphor" (Margaret Mary Mitchell, Frances Margaret Young, K. Scott Bowie, Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1, Origins to Constantine (Cambridge University Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-521-81239-9), pp. 160-161).
21.Jump up ^ Apostolic Presbyterianism - by William Cunningham and Reg Barrow
22.^ Jump up to: a b c Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
23.Jump up ^ presbyter. CollinsDictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
24.Jump up ^ Philip Carrington, The Early Christian Church (2 vol. 1957) online edition vol 1; online edition vol 2
25.Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce. The canon of the New Testament. 1997
26.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1120
27.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1554
28.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1562-1568
29.Jump up ^ Γ. Μπαμπινιώτη Λεξικό για το σχολείο & το γραφείο (Κέντρο Λεξικολογίας Αθήνα 2004 ISBN 960-86190-4-1)
30.Jump up ^ Canon VI of the First Council of Nicea, which closes the period under consideration in this article, reads: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop ..." As can be seen, the title of "Patriarch", later applied to some of these bishops, was not used by the Council: "Nobody can maintain that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when they were so called" (ffoulkes, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, quoted in Volume XIV of Philip Schaff's The Seven Ecumenical Councils).
31.Jump up ^ See, for example, Council of Jerusalem and Early centers of Christianity#Jerusalem.
32.Jump up ^ "Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan" (Canon 7).
33.Jump up ^ R. J. Bauckham (1982). D. A. Carson, ed. "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic church". From Sabbath to Lord's Day (Zondervan): 252–298
34.Jump up ^ "1 Timothy 2 NIV". BibleGateway. Retrieved 7 October 2012.
35.Jump up ^ "Ephesians 5 NIV". Retrieved 7 October 2012.
36.Jump up ^ Elizabeth Ann Clark (1983). Women in the Early Church. Liturgical Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8146-5332-6.
37.Jump up ^ "Romans 16:1-2 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
38.Jump up ^ "Romans 16:3-5 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
39.Jump up ^ "Acts 16:40 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
40.Jump up ^ "Acts 16:14-15 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
41.Jump up ^ "Did the Early Church have Deaconesses?". Catholic Answers. YouTube. Retrieved: 31 March 2014.
42.Jump up ^ "Did the Apostles Establish the Office of Deaconess?". The Christian Post. 3 April 2013. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
43.Jump up ^ Dodds, E.R. (1970) [1965]. Pagan and christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton. pp. 136–137. "A Christian congregation was from the first a community in a much fuller sense than any corresponding group of Isiac or Mithraist devotees. Its members were bound together not only by common rites but by a common way of life . ... Love of one's neighbour is not an exclusively Christian virtue, but in [this] period Christians appear to have practised it much more effectively an any other group. The Church provided the essentials of social security. ... But even more important, I suspect, than these material benefits was the sense of belonging which the Christian community could give." Quoted in Stark, Rodney (1996). The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780691027494. Retrieved 2013-01-23.
44.Jump up ^ Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans, 2005), page 650.
45.Jump up ^ Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans, 2005), page 204.
46.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1965). "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" (PDF). Theological Studies 26: 545–73.
47.Jump up ^ "Alogi or Alogoi", Early Church.org.uk.
48.Jump up ^ "Alogi", Francis P. Havey, The Catholic Encyclopedia Volume I, 1907.
49.Jump up ^ Stark, Rodney (9 May 1997). The Rise of Christianity. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-067701-5. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
50.^ Jump up to: a b Haight, Roger D. (16 September 2004). Christian Community in History Volume 1: Historical Ecclesiology. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 83–84. ISBN 978-0-8264-1630-8. Retrieved 26 October 2012. "The churches were becoming ever more distant from their origins in space and time. They were growing and with growth came new or false teachings, the sources of controversy and division."
51.Jump up ^ Ronald Y.K. Fung as cited in John Piper; Wayne Grudem (8 August 2006). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Crossway. p. 254. ISBN 978-1-4335-1918-5. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
52.Jump up ^ Williams, Robert Lee (2005). Bishop Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises. Gorgias Press LLC. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-59333-194-8. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
53.Jump up ^ Esler (2004). Pp 893-894.
54.^ Jump up to: a b White (2004). Pp 446-447.
55.Jump up ^ Philip R. Davies, in The Canon Debate, page 50: "With many other scholars, I conclude that the fixing of a canonical list was almost certainly the achievement of the Hasmonean dynasty."
56.Jump up ^ Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, page 112
57.Jump up ^ Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005, article Fathers of the Church
58.Jump up ^ Ephesians 5-6, Magnesians 2, 6-7, 13, Trallians 2-3, Smyrnaeans 8-9
59.Jump up ^ Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), pp. 19–20
60.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 281, quote: "By the year 100, more than 40 Christian communities existed in cities around the Mediterranean, including two in North Africa, at Alexandria and Cyrene, and several in Italy."
61.^ Jump up to: a b Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004), p. 18, quote: "The story of how this tiny community of believers spread to many cities of the Roman Empire within less than a century is indeed a remarkable chapter in the history of humanity."
62.Jump up ^ Franzen 29
63.Jump up ^ Michael Whitby, et al. eds. Christian Persecution, Martyrdom and Orthodoxy (2006) online edition
64.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996.
65.Jump up ^ Dag Øistein Endsjø. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009.
66.Jump up ^ Moishem, Johann Lorenz von, The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries : Illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, F. & J. Rivington, London, 1845, p. 106
67.Jump up ^ Gibbon, Edward, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter Fifteen. in 6 volumes at the Internet Archive.
Bibliography[edit]
##Berard, Wayne Daniel. When Christians Were Jews (That Is, Now). Cowley Publications (2006). ISBN 1-56101-280-7.
##Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro & Gargola, Daniel J & Talbert, Richard John Alexander. The Romans: From Village to Empire. Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0-19-511875-8.
##Bourgel, Jonathan. "The Jewish Christians' Move from Jerusalem as a Pragmatic Choice", in: D. Jaffé (ed.), [2] Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity – Text and Context, (Collection: Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity; Leiden: Brill; 2010), 107-138.
##Dauphin, C. "De l'Église de la circoncision à l'Église de la gentilité – sur une nouvelle voie hors de l'impasse". Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Liber Annuus XLIII (1993).
##Dunn, James D.G. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Pp 33–34. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999). ISBN 0-8028-4498-7.
##Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins (2005). ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
##Endsjø, Dag Øistein. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009.
##Esler, Philip F. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2004). ISBN 0-415-33312-1.
##Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. Mayfield (1985). ISBN 0-87484-696-X.
##Hinson, E. Glenn The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages. Abingdon Press (1996). ISBN 0-687-00603-1.
##Hunt, Emily Jane. Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian. Routledge (2003). ISBN 0-415-30405-9.
##Keck, Leander E. Paul and His Letters. Fortress Press (1988). ISBN 0-8006-2340-1.
##Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan. The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). University of Chicago Press (1975). ISBN 0-226-65371-4.
##Pritz, Ray A., Nazarene Jewish Christianity From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century. Magnes Press - E.J. Brill, Jerusalem - Leiden (1988).
##Richardson, Cyril Charles. Early Christian Fathers. Westminster John Knox Press (1953). ISBN 0-664-22747-3.
##Stark, Rodney.The Rise of Christianity. Harper Collins Pbk. Ed edition 1997. ISBN 0-06-067701-5
##Stambaugh, John E. & Balch, David L. The New Testament in Its Social Environment. John Knox Press (1986). ISBN 0-664-25012-2.
##Tabor, James D. "Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites", The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (1998).
##Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.
##Thiede, Carsten Peter. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Palgrabe Macmillan (2003). ISBN 1-4039-6143-3.
##Valantasis, Richard. The Making of the Self: Ancient and Modern Asceticism. James Clarke & Co (2008) ISBN 978-0-227-17281-0.[3]
##White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins (2004). ISBN 0-06-052655-6.
##Wilson, Barrie A. How Jesus Became Christian. New York: St. Martin's Press, (2008).
##Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Fortress Press (1992). ISBN 0-8006-2681-8.
##Wylen, Stephen M. The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction. Paulist Press (1995). ISBN 0-8091-3610-4.
External links[edit]
##Early Christians
##Ebionites
##Early Christian Writings
##Christian Classics Ethereal Library
##Early Church Texts
##The Early Christians in Their Own Words (free Ebook – English or Arabic)
##Catholic Encyclopedia: The Fathers of the Church
##PBS Frontline: The First Christians
##"The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited, Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.
##The Jewish Roman World of Jesus
##Early Christian Sites in Ireland


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity



























The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea

























































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity











Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.









































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject


  


Categories: Patristics
1st-century Christianity
Early Christianity
Christianity and Judaism related controversies









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Беларуская
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Lietuvių
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
Nederlands
Nedersaksies
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
کوردی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 May 2015, at 14:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity









Early Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is a description of early Christianity itself. For an overview of early Christian history, see Early history of Christianity.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus depicted as the Good Shepherd


Jesus ·
 Christ
 [hide]
Jesus in Christianity ·
 Virgin birth ·
 Ministry ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection
 


Bible ·
 Foundations
 [hide]
Old Testament ·
 New Testament ·
 Gospel ·
 Canon ·
 Books ·
 Church ·
 Creed ·
 New Covenant
 

Theology[hide]

God ·
 Trinity  (Father ·
 Son ·
 Holy Spirit)
 

Apologetics ·
 Baptism ·
 Catholicism ·
 Christology ·
 History of theology ·
 Mission ·
 Salvation
 


History ·
 Tradition
 [hide]
Mary ·
 Apostles ·
 Peter ·
 Paul ·
 Fathers ·
 Early Christianity ·
 Constantine ·
 Councils ·
 Augustine ·
 East–West Schism ·
 Crusades ·
 Aquinas ·
 Reformation ·
 Luther
 

Related topics[hide]

Art ·
 Holidays (list) ·
 Criticism ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Liturgy ·
 Music ·
 Other religions ·
 Prayer ·
 Sermon ·
 Symbolism
 


Denominations ·
 Groups
 [hide]

Western
Adventist ·
 Anabaptist ·
 Anglican ·
 Baptist ·
 Calvinist ·
 Catholic ·
 Evangelical ·
 Holiness ·
 Lutheran ·
 Methodist ·
 Protestant ·
 Pentecostal
 
Eastern
Eastern Orthodox ·
 Eastern Catholic ·
 Oriental Orthodox ·
 Assyrian
 
Nontrinitarian
Jehovah's Witness ·
 Latter Day Saint ·
 Oneness Pentecostal
 

Christian cross Christianity portal
v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Part of a series on
Christian mysticism
"Universal Man", an illumination from a 13th-century copy of Hildegard von Bingen's Liber Divinorum Operum ("Book of Divine Works", c. 1165).
Mysticism ·
 Catholic spirituality
 

Theologies · Philosophies[show]








Practices[show]








People
by era or century



Early Christianity[show]





Desert Fathers[show]













11th · 12th[show]






13th · 14th[show]







































15th · 16th[show]
















17th · 18th[show]

















19th[show]











20th[show]












Contemporary Papal views[show]




v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Early Christianity is the period of Christianity preceding the First Council of Nicaea in 325. It is typically divided into the Apostolic Age and the Ante-Nicene Period (from the Apostolic Age until Nicea).
The first Christians, as described in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, were all Jewish, either by birth, or conversion for which the biblical term proselyte is used,[1] and referred to by historians as the Jewish Christians. The early Gospel message was spread orally; probably in Aramaic,[2] but almost immediately also in Greek.[3] The New Testament's Book of Acts and Epistle to the Galatians record that the first Christian community was centered in Jerusalem and its leaders included Peter, James, and John.[4] Paul of Tarsus, after his conversion to Christianity, claimed the title of "Apostle to the Gentiles". Paul's influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament authors.[5] By the end of the 1st century, Christianity began to be recognized internally and externally as a separate religion from Judaism which itself was refined and developed further in the centuries after the destruction of the Second Jerusalem Temple.
Numerous quotations in the New Testament and other Christian writings of the 1st centuries, indicate that early Christians generally used and revered the Jewish Bible (the Tanakh) as Scripture, mostly in the Greek (Septuagint) or Aramaic (Targum) translations.[6]
As the New Testament canon developed, the Letters of Paul, the canonical gospels and various other works were also recognized as scripture to be read in church. Paul's letters, especially Romans, established a theology based on Christ rather than on the Mosaic Law, but most Christian denominations today still consider the "moral prescriptions" of the Mosaic Law, such as the Ten Commandments, Great Commandment, and Golden Rule, to be relevant. Early Christians demonstrated a wide range of beliefs and practices, many of which were later denounced as heretical.


Contents  [hide]
1 History
2 Practices 2.1 Baptism
2.2 Organization
2.3 Sabbath
2.4 Women
2.5 Community
3 Beliefs 3.1 Christology 3.1.1 Divinity of Christ
3.2 Eschatology
4 Ecclesiology
5 Orthodoxy and heterodoxy
6 Religious writing 6.1 Defining scripture
6.2 Fathers of the church 6.2.1 Apostolic Fathers

7 Spread of Christianity
8 See also
9 References 9.1 Citations
9.2 Bibliography
10 External links

History[edit]
Main article: History of early Christianity
The earliest followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic, Second Temple Jewish sect, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. The first part of the period, during the lifetimes of the Twelve Apostles, is called the Apostolic Age. In line with the Great Commission attributed to the resurrected Jesus, the Apostles are said to have dispersed from Jerusalem, and the missionary activity spread Christianity to cities throughout the Hellenistic world and even beyond the Roman Empire. Though Paul's influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament author,[5] the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed.
Early Christians suffered sporadic persecution as the result of local pagan populations putting pressure on the imperial authorities to take action against the Christians in their midst, who were thought to bring misfortune by their refusal to honour the gods.[7][8] Persecution was on the rise in Asia Minor towards the end of the 1st century,[9] and in 111 AD the emperor Trajan issued regulations about the conduct of trials of Christians under the Roman governor of the area.[10] The first action taken against Christians by the order of an emperor occurred half a century earlier under Nero after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD.[8]
During the Ante-Nicene period following the Apostolic Age, a great diversity of views emerged simultaneously with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period. Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh rejection of Judaism and Jewish practices. Early Christianity gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries and established itself as a predominantly gentile religion in the Roman Empire.
According to Will Durant, the Christian Church prevailed over paganism because it offered a much more attractive doctrine and because the church leaders addressed human needs better than their rivals.[11]
Practices[edit]
From the writings of early Christians, historians have tried to piece together an understanding of various early Christian practices including worship services, customs and observances. Early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr (100 – 165) described these practices.
Baptism[edit]
Main article: Baptism in early Christianity
Early Christian beliefs regarding baptism probably predate the New Testament writings. It seems certain that numerous Jewish sects and certainly Jesus and his disciples practised baptism, which became integral to nearly every manifestation of the religion of the Jews. John the Baptist had baptized many people before baptisms took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Many of the interpretations that would later become orthodox Christian beliefs concerning baptism can be traced to apostles such as Paul, who likened baptism to being buried with Christ in his death (Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12). On the basis of this description, it was supposed by some modern theologians that the early Christians practised baptism by submersion (Matthew 3:13-17). This interpretation is debated between those Christian denominations who advocate immersion baptism exclusively and those who practice baptism by affusion or aspersion as well as by immersion. Yet the Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings on liturgical practices, mentions that baptism may occur by pouring water on the head three times using the trinitarian formula (i.e., in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).
Infant baptism was widely practised at least by the 3rd century,[5] but it is disputed whether it was in the first centuries of Christianity. Some believe that the Church in the apostolic period practised infant baptism, arguing that the mention of the baptism of households in the Acts of the Apostles would have included children within the household.[12] Others believe that infants were excluded from the baptism of households, citing verses of the Bible that describe the baptized households as believing, which infants are incapable of doing.[12] In the 2nd century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, may have referred to it.[5][13][14] Additionally, Justin Martyr wrote about baptism in First Apology (written in the mid-2nd century), describing it as a choice and contrasting it with the lack of choice one has in one's physical birth.[15] However, Justin Martyr also seems to imply elsewhere that believers were "disciples from childhood", indicating, perhaps, their baptism. The Bishop Polycarp, himself a disciple of the Apostle John, stated at his martyrdom (AD 168) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth as well. Joachim Jeremias concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. If his parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' support a baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years'... for which there is no evidence at all." The so-called Apostolic Tradition says to "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." If it was written by Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition could be dated about 215 AD, but recent scholars believe it to be material from separate sources ranging from the middle second to the fourth century,[16][17] being gathered and compiled on about 375-400 AD. The 3rd century evidence is clearer, with both Origen (calling infant baptism "according to the usage of the Church")[18] and Cyprian advocating the practice. Tertullian acknowledges the practice (and that sponsors would speak on behalf of the children), but, holding an unusual view of marriage, argues against it, on the grounds that baptism should be postponed until after marriage.[19]
Interpretation of the baptismal practices of the early church is important to groups such as Baptists, Anabaptists, and the churches of Christ who believe that infant baptism was a development that occurred during the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries. The early Christian writings mentioned above, which date from the 2nd and 3rd century indicate that Christians as early as the 2nd century did maintain such a practice.[20]
Organization[edit]
Christian groups and congregations first organized themselves loosely. In Paul's time, although certain decisions by Elders and Apostles were binding, as in the Council of Jerusalem,[21] there were no precisely delineated functions yet for bishops, elders, and deacons.[22] A Church hierarchy, however, seems to have developed by the late 1st century and early 2nd century[22] (see Pastoral Epistles, c 90 - 140[22]). These structures were certainly formalized well before the end of the Early Christian period, which concluded with the legalization of Christianity by Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313 and the holding of the First Council of Nicea in 325, when the title of Metropolitan bishop first appears.
In the post-Apostolic church, bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations, and a hierarchy of clergy gradually took on the form of episkopoi (overseers), presbyteroi (elders),[23] and diakonoi (ministerial servants). This hierarchy emerged slowly and at different times for different locations. Clement, a 1st-century bishop of Rome, refers to the leaders of the Corinthian church in his epistle to Corinthians as bishops and presbyters interchangeably. The New Testament writers also use the terms "overseer" and "elder" interchangeably and as synonyms.[24] The Didache (dated by most scholars to the early 2nd century),[25] speaks of "appointing for yourself bishops and deacons".
Disputes regarding the proper titles and roles of church leaders would later become one of the major causes of schism within the Christian church.[citation needed] Such disputes include the roles of bishops and presbyters. Churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox use the word "priest" of all the baptized, but apply it in a more specific sense ("ministerial priesthood")[26] to bishops and presbyters[27] and sometimes, somewhat loosely, treat "presbyter" and "priest" as synonyms,[28][29] applying both terms to clergy subordinate to bishops. In congregational churches, the title "priest" is rejected, keeping only "presbyter" or "elder". Some congregational churches do not include a role of bishop in their organizational polity.
Post-apostolic bishops of importance include Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome . These men reportedly knew and studied under the apostles personally and are therefore called Apostolic Fathers. Each Christian community also had presbyters, as was the case with Jewish communities, who were also ordained and assisted the bishop; as Christianity spread, especially in rural areas, the presbyters exercised more responsibilities and took distinctive shape as priests. Lastly, deacons also performed certain duties, such as tending to the poor and sick. In the 2nd century, an episcopal structure becomes more visible, and in that century this structure was supported by teaching on apostolic succession, where a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves.
By the end of the early Christian period, the church within the Roman Empire had hundreds of bishops, some of them (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, "other provinces") holding some form of jurisdiction over others.[30]
Jerusalem was the first church and an important church center up to 135.[31] The First Council of Nicaea recognized and confirmed the tradition by which Jerusalem continued to be given "special honour", but did not assign to it even metropolitan authority within its own province, still less the extraprovincial jurisdiction exercised by Rome and the other sees mentioned above.[32]
Constantinople came into prominence only after the early Christian period, being founded officially in 330, five years after the First Council of Nicaea, though the much smaller original city of Byzantium was an early center of Christianity largely due to its proximity to Anatolia.
Sabbath[edit]
See also: Sabbath in Christianity
According to Bauckham, the post-apostolic church contained diverse practices as regards the Sabbath.[33]
Women[edit]
Main article: Women in Christianity § Women in the New Testament Church
The attitude of the Church Fathers towards women paralleled rules in Jewish law regarding a woman's role in worship, although the early church allowed women to participate in worship - something that was not allowed in the Synagogue (where women were restricted to the outer court). The First Epistle to Timothy teaches that women should remain quiet during public worship and were not to instruct men or assume authority over them.[34] and the Deutero-Pauline Epistle to the Ephesians calls upon women to submit to the authority of their husbands.[35]
Elizabeth A. Clark says that the Church Fathers regarded women both as "God's good gift to men" and as "the curse of the world", both as "weak in both mind and character" and as people who "displayed dauntless courage, undertook prodigious feats of scholarship".[36]
The New Testament provides several examples of female leaders, including Phoebe (a deaconess, a Christian designated to serve with under the bishops and presbyters of the church in a variety of ways, in Corinth),[37] Priscilla (an early missionary and wife of Aquila)[38] and Lydia (who hosted a house church in the Asian city of Thyatira).[39][40] Though never ordained,[41][42] these women were very influential, and they are still venerated today.
Community[edit]
Early Christian congregations apparently provided members with a strong sense of community, with mutual religious and material support.[43]
Beliefs[edit]
Early Christian beliefs were based on the apostolic preaching (kerygma), considered to be preserved in tradition and in New Testament scripture, for parts of which scholars have posited dates as late as the third century, although it was then attributed to the Apostles themselves and their contemporaries, such as Mark and Luke.
Christology[edit]
Divinity of Christ[edit]
Main articles: Christology and Divinity of Christ
Most Christians identified Jesus as divine from a very early period, although holding a variety of competing views as to what exactly this implied.[44] Early Christian views tended to see Jesus as a unique agent of God;[45] by the Council of Nicaea in 325 he was identified as God in the fullest sense, being 'of the same substance, essence or being'.
Some of the 1st and 2nd-century texts that would later be canonized as the New Testament several times imply or indirectly refer to the divine character to Jesus, though there is scholarly debate as to whether or not they call him God[46] Within 15–20 years of the death of Jesus, Paul, who authored the largest early expositions of Christian theology, refers to Jesus as the resurrected "Son of God", the savior who would return from heaven and save his faithful, dead and living, from the imminent destruction of the world. The Synoptic Gospels describe him as the "Son of God", though the phrase "Son of Man" (always placed in the mouth of Jesus himself) is more frequently used in the Gospel of Mark; born of the Virgin Mary by the agency of the Holy Spirit, and who will return to judge the nations. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the human incarnation of the divine Word or "Logos" (see Jesus the Logos) and True Vine. It is believed that the Book of Revelation depicts Jesus as "the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (22:13), and applies similar terms to "the Lord God": "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'" (1:8).
The term "Logos" was used in Greek philosophy (see Heraclitus) and in Hellenistic Jewish religious writing (see Philo Judaeus of Alexandria) to mean the ultimate ordering principle of the universe. Those who rejected the identification of Jesus with the Logos, rejecting also the Gospel of John, were called Alogi (see also Monarchianism).[47][48]
Adoptionists, such as the Ebionites, considered him as at first an ordinary man, born to Joseph and Mary, who later became the Son of God at his baptism, his transfiguration, or his resurrection.[citation needed]
Eschatology[edit]
See also: Christian eschatology
Ecclesiology[edit]
Rodney Stark estimates that the number of Christians grew by approximately 40% a decade during the first and second centuries.[49] This phenomenal growth rate forced Christian communities to evolve in order to adapt to their changes in the nature of their communities as well as their relationship with their political and socioeconomic environment. As the number of Christians grew, the Christian communities became larger, more numerous and farther apart geographically. The passage of time also moved some Christians farther from the original teachings of the apostles giving rise to teachings that were considered heterodox and sowing controversy and divisiveness within churches and between churches.[50]
Roger Haight posits the development of ecclesiology in the form of "Early Catholicism" as one response to the problem of church unity. Thus, the solution to division arising from heterodox teaching was the development of "tighter and more standardized structures of ministry. One of these structures is the tri-partite form of church leadership consisting of bishops, elders and deacons that Ignatius of Antioch urged churches to adopt, writing that "You cannot have a church without these." Over the course of the second century, this organizational structure became universal and continues to be used in the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches as well as in some Protestant denominations.[50]
Despite its mention of bishops, there is no clear evidence in the New Testament that supports the concepts of dioceses and monepiscopacy (i.e. the rule that all the churches in a geographic area should be ruled by a single bishop). Scholars point to evidence that Christian communities such as Rome had many bishops and that the concept of monepiscopacy was still emerging when Ignatius was urging his tri-partite structure on other churches.[51]
Robert Williams posits that the "origin and earliest development of episcopacy and monepiscopacy and the ecclesiastical concept of (apostolic) succession were associated with crisis situations in the early church."[52]
Orthodoxy and heterodoxy[edit]
Main article: Diversity in early Christian theology
The proto-orthodox church had a dichotomy for teachings; they were either orthodox or heterodox. Orthodox teachings were those that had the authentic lineage of Holy Tradition. All other teachings were viewed as deviant streams of thought and were possibly heretical. An important discussion in the past century among scholars of early Christianity is to what extent it is still appropriate to speak of "orthodoxy" and "heresy". Higher criticism drastically altered the previous perception that heresy was a very rare exception to the orthodoxy. Some orthodox scholars argue against the increasing focus on heterodoxy. A movement away from presuming the correctness or dominance of the orthodoxy is seen as understandable, in light of modern approaches. However, these orthodox scholars feel that instead of an even and neutral approach to historical analysis that the heterodox sects are given an assumption of superiority over the orthodox movement.[53]
Religious writing[edit]
See also: List of early Christian writers and List of early Christian texts of disputed authorship
Early Christians wrote many religious works, some of which were later canonized as the New Testament of today.
Defining scripture[edit]
Main article: Development of the Christian Biblical canon
Debates about scripture were underway in the mid-2nd century, concurrent with a drastic increase of new scriptures, both Jewish and Christian. Debates regarding practice and belief gradually became reliant on the use of scripture other than what Melito referred to as the Old Testament, as the New Testament canon developed. Similarly, in the 3rd century a shift away from direct revelation as a source of authority occurred, most notably against the Montanists. "Scripture" still had a broad meaning and usually referred to the Septuagint among Greek speakers or the Targums among Aramaic speakers or the Vetus Latina translations in Carthage. Beyond the Torah (the Law) and some of the earliest prophetic works (the Prophets), there was not agreement on the canon, but this was not debated much at first. By the mid-2nd century, tensions arose with the split of early Christianity and Judaism, which some theorize led eventually to the determination of a Jewish canon by the emerging rabbinic movement,[54] though, even as of today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. For example some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier, by the Hasmonean dynasty (140-137 BC).[55]
A problem for scholars is that there is a lack of direct evidence on when Christians began accepting their own scriptures alongside the Septuagint. Well into the 2nd century Christians held onto a strong preference for oral tradition as clearly demonstrated by writers of the time, such as Papias.[54]
Koine Greek spread all over the Empire, even up the Rhone valley of Gaul; Roman satirists complained that even Rome had become a Greek city. Thus the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) was the dominant translation (even the Peshitta appears to be influenced[56]). Later Jerome would express his preference for adhering strictly to the Hebrew text and canon, but his view held little currency even in his own day. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that substantial numbers of Christians began to reject those books of the Septuagint which are not found in the Jewish Masoretic Text, referring to them as biblical apocrypha. In addition, some New Testament books were also disputed, known as the Antilegomena.
Fathers of the church[edit]
Main article: Church Fathers
Since the end of the 4th century, the title "Fathers of the Church" has been used to refer to a more or less clearly defined group of ecclesiastical writers who are appealed to as authorities on doctrinal matters. Orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life, approval by the Church and antiquity are traditionally considered conditions for classification as a Father of the Church, but modern writers sometimes include Tertullian, Origen and a few others.[57]
Apostolic Fathers[edit]



 St. Clement I was an Apostolic Father.
See also: Apostolic Fathers
The earliest Christian writings (other than those collected in the New Testament) are a group of letters credited to the Apostolic Fathers. These include the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement, as well as the Didache. Taken as a whole, the collection is notable for its literary simplicity, religious zeal and lack of Hellenistic philosophy or rhetoric. Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch (died 98 to 117) advocated the authority of the apostolic episcopacy (bishops).[58]
Spread of Christianity[edit]




  Spread of Christianity to AD 325
  Spread of Christianity to AD 600
Main article: Early centers of Christianity
Early Christianity spread from city to city throughout the Hellenized Roman Empire and beyond into East Africa and South Asia. The Christian Apostles, said to have dispersed from Jerusalem, traveled extensively and established communities in major cities and regions throughout the Empire. The original church communities were founded in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Armenia, Caucasian Albania, Arabia, Greece, and other places.[59][60][61] by apostles (see Apostolic see) and other Christian soldiers, merchants, and preachers.[62] Over forty were established by the year 100,[60][61] many in Asia Minor, such as the seven churches of Asia. By the end of the 1st century, Christianity had spread to Greece and Italy, even India.
In 301 AD, the Kingdom of Armenia became the first state to declare Christianity as its official religion, following the conversion of the Royal House of the Arsacids in Armenia. The Armenian Apostolic Church is the world's oldest national church.
Despite sometimes intense persecutions, the Christian religion continued its spread throughout the Mediterranean Basin.[63]
There is no agreement on an explanation of how Christianity managed to spread so successfully prior to the Edict of Milan. For some Christians, the success was simply the natural consequence of the truth of the religion and the direct intervention of God. However, similar explanations are claimed for the spread of, for instance, Islam and Buddhism. In The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark argues that Christianity triumphed over paganism chiefly because it improved the lives of its adherents in various ways.[64] Another factor, more recently pointed out, was the way in which Christianity combined its promise of a general resurrection of the dead with the traditional Greek belief that true immortality depended on the survival of the body, with Christianity adding practical explanations of how this was going to actually happen at the end of the world.[65] For Mosheim the rapid progression of Christianity was explained by two factors: translations of the New Testament and the Apologies composed in defence of Christianity.[66] Edward Gibbon, in his classic The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, discusses the topic in considerable detail in his famous Chapter Fifteen, summarizing the historical causes of the early success of Christianity as follows: "(1) The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses. (2) The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth. (3) The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church. (4) The pure and austere morals of the Christians. (5) The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire."[67]
See also[edit]
##Ante-Nicene Fathers
##Catholicism
##Christian primitivism
##Christianity in the 1st century
##Christianity in the 2nd century
##Christianity in the 3rd century
##Christian Torah-submission
##Constantine I and Christianity
##Constantinian shift
##Early Christian art and architecture
##Great Church
##History of Christianity
##Orthodox Christianity
##Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
##Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
##Restorationism
##Society for the Study of Early Christianity
##State church of the Roman Empire
References[edit]
Citations[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Proselyte: "The English term "proselyte" occurs only in the New Testament where it signifies a convert to the Jewish religion (Matthew 23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; etc.), though the same Greek word is commonly used in the Septuagint to designate a foreigner living in Palestine. Thus the term seems to have passed from an original local and chiefly political sense, in which it was used as early as 300 B.C., to a technical and religious meaning in the Judaism of the New Testament epoch."
2.Jump up ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, pp 87- 90.
3.Jump up ^ Jaeger, Werner (1961). Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Harvard University Press. pp. 6, 108–109. ISBN 9780674220522. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
4.Jump up ^ Galatians 2:9, Acts 1:13; See Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles for details
5.^ Jump up to: a b c d Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. F.L. Lucas (Oxford) entry on Paul
6.Jump up ^ [1] How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth - Gordon D. Fee - Douglas Stuart - Harper Collins Publishing
7.Jump up ^ "As the existence of the Christians became more widely known, it became increasingly clear that they were (a) antisocial, in that they did not participate in the normal social life of their communities; (b) sacrilegious, in that they refused to worship the gods; and (c) dangerous, in that the gods did not take kindly to communities that harbored those who failed to offer them cult. By the end of the second century, the Christian apologist (literally, 'defender' of the faith) Tertullian complained about the widespread perception that Christians were the source of all disasters brought against the human race by the gods. 'They think the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people are visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry is, "Away with the Christians to the lion!"' (Apology 40)" - Bart D. Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford University Press 2004 ISBN 978-0-19-536934-2), pp. 313–314
8.^ Jump up to: a b de Ste. Croix, Geoffrey Ernest Maurice. "Why Were Early Christians Persecuted?". Past & Present, No. 26 (Nov., 1963), pp. 105–152.
9.Jump up ^ Ehrman 2004, p. 318 - "If the letter [1 Peter] is indeed associated with Asia Minor, as its prescript suggests, it should probably be assigned to the first century, possibly near its end, when persecution of the Christians was on the rise"
10.Jump up ^ John Granger Cook, Roman Attitudes Towards the Christians (Mohr Siebeck 2011 ISBN 978-3-16150954-4), pp. 138ff.
11.Jump up ^ Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972
12.^ Jump up to: a b Richard Wagner, Christianity for Dummies (John Wiley & Sons 2011 ISBN 978-1-11806901-1)
13.Jump up ^ "He (Jesus) came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God and children, infants, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Adversus Haereses, ii, 22, 4)
14.Jump up ^ Paul King Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, (Eerdmans 1978), page 127.
15.Jump up ^ "Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there 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.""The First Apology, Chapter 61". New Advent. Retrieved 14 December 2013.
16.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, Paul F. (2002). The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN 978-0-19-521732-2.
17.Jump up ^ Bradshaw, Paul; Johnson, Maxwell E.; Philips, L. Edwards (2002). The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-6046-8.
18.Jump up ^ Homilies on Leviticus 8.3.11; Commentary on Romans 5.9; and Homily on Luke 14.5
19.Jump up ^ "The delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary ... that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? ... For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred - in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom - until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence" (On Baptism 18).
20.Jump up ^ "The Didache, representing practice perhaps as early as the beginning of the second century, probably in Syria, also assumes immersion to be normal, but it allows that if sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, water may be poured three times over the head. The latter must have been a frequent arrangement, for it corresponds with most early artistic depictions of baptism, in Roman catacombs and on sarcophagi of the third century and later. The earliest identifiable Christian meeting house known to us, at Dura Europos on the Euphrates, contained a baptismal basin too shallow for immersion. Obviously local practice varied, and practicality will often have trumped whatever desire leaders may have felt to make action mime metaphor" (Margaret Mary Mitchell, Frances Margaret Young, K. Scott Bowie, Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1, Origins to Constantine (Cambridge University Press 2006 ISBN 978-0-521-81239-9), pp. 160-161).
21.Jump up ^ Apostolic Presbyterianism - by William Cunningham and Reg Barrow
22.^ Jump up to: a b c Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
23.Jump up ^ presbyter. CollinsDictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition. Retrieved 6 October 2012.
24.Jump up ^ Philip Carrington, The Early Christian Church (2 vol. 1957) online edition vol 1; online edition vol 2
25.Jump up ^ Metzger, Bruce. The canon of the New Testament. 1997
26.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1120
27.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1554
28.Jump up ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1562-1568
29.Jump up ^ Γ. Μπαμπινιώτη Λεξικό για το σχολείο & το γραφείο (Κέντρο Λεξικολογίας Αθήνα 2004 ISBN 960-86190-4-1)
30.Jump up ^ Canon VI of the First Council of Nicea, which closes the period under consideration in this article, reads: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop ..." As can be seen, the title of "Patriarch", later applied to some of these bishops, was not used by the Council: "Nobody can maintain that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when they were so called" (ffoulkes, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, quoted in Volume XIV of Philip Schaff's The Seven Ecumenical Councils).
31.Jump up ^ See, for example, Council of Jerusalem and Early centers of Christianity#Jerusalem.
32.Jump up ^ "Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan" (Canon 7).
33.Jump up ^ R. J. Bauckham (1982). D. A. Carson, ed. "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic church". From Sabbath to Lord's Day (Zondervan): 252–298
34.Jump up ^ "1 Timothy 2 NIV". BibleGateway. Retrieved 7 October 2012.
35.Jump up ^ "Ephesians 5 NIV". Retrieved 7 October 2012.
36.Jump up ^ Elizabeth Ann Clark (1983). Women in the Early Church. Liturgical Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8146-5332-6.
37.Jump up ^ "Romans 16:1-2 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
38.Jump up ^ "Romans 16:3-5 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
39.Jump up ^ "Acts 16:40 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
40.Jump up ^ "Acts 16:14-15 (New International Version)". Retrieved 17 February 2013.
41.Jump up ^ "Did the Early Church have Deaconesses?". Catholic Answers. YouTube. Retrieved: 31 March 2014.
42.Jump up ^ "Did the Apostles Establish the Office of Deaconess?". The Christian Post. 3 April 2013. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
43.Jump up ^ Dodds, E.R. (1970) [1965]. Pagan and christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton. pp. 136–137. "A Christian congregation was from the first a community in a much fuller sense than any corresponding group of Isiac or Mithraist devotees. Its members were bound together not only by common rites but by a common way of life . ... Love of one's neighbour is not an exclusively Christian virtue, but in [this] period Christians appear to have practised it much more effectively an any other group. The Church provided the essentials of social security. ... But even more important, I suspect, than these material benefits was the sense of belonging which the Christian community could give." Quoted in Stark, Rodney (1996). The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton University Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780691027494. Retrieved 2013-01-23.
44.Jump up ^ Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans, 2005), page 650.
45.Jump up ^ Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans, 2005), page 204.
46.Jump up ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1965). "Does the New Testament call Jesus God?" (PDF). Theological Studies 26: 545–73.
47.Jump up ^ "Alogi or Alogoi", Early Church.org.uk.
48.Jump up ^ "Alogi", Francis P. Havey, The Catholic Encyclopedia Volume I, 1907.
49.Jump up ^ Stark, Rodney (9 May 1997). The Rise of Christianity. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-067701-5. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
50.^ Jump up to: a b Haight, Roger D. (16 September 2004). Christian Community in History Volume 1: Historical Ecclesiology. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 83–84. ISBN 978-0-8264-1630-8. Retrieved 26 October 2012. "The churches were becoming ever more distant from their origins in space and time. They were growing and with growth came new or false teachings, the sources of controversy and division."
51.Jump up ^ Ronald Y.K. Fung as cited in John Piper; Wayne Grudem (8 August 2006). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Crossway. p. 254. ISBN 978-1-4335-1918-5. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
52.Jump up ^ Williams, Robert Lee (2005). Bishop Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises. Gorgias Press LLC. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-59333-194-8. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
53.Jump up ^ Esler (2004). Pp 893-894.
54.^ Jump up to: a b White (2004). Pp 446-447.
55.Jump up ^ Philip R. Davies, in The Canon Debate, page 50: "With many other scholars, I conclude that the fixing of a canonical list was almost certainly the achievement of the Hasmonean dynasty."
56.Jump up ^ Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, page 112
57.Jump up ^ Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005, article Fathers of the Church
58.Jump up ^ Ephesians 5-6, Magnesians 2, 6-7, 13, Trallians 2-3, Smyrnaeans 8-9
59.Jump up ^ Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), pp. 19–20
60.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 281, quote: "By the year 100, more than 40 Christian communities existed in cities around the Mediterranean, including two in North Africa, at Alexandria and Cyrene, and several in Italy."
61.^ Jump up to: a b Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004), p. 18, quote: "The story of how this tiny community of believers spread to many cities of the Roman Empire within less than a century is indeed a remarkable chapter in the history of humanity."
62.Jump up ^ Franzen 29
63.Jump up ^ Michael Whitby, et al. eds. Christian Persecution, Martyrdom and Orthodoxy (2006) online edition
64.Jump up ^ Rodney Stark. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996.
65.Jump up ^ Dag Øistein Endsjø. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009.
66.Jump up ^ Moishem, Johann Lorenz von, The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries : Illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, F. & J. Rivington, London, 1845, p. 106
67.Jump up ^ Gibbon, Edward, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter Fifteen. in 6 volumes at the Internet Archive.
Bibliography[edit]
##Berard, Wayne Daniel. When Christians Were Jews (That Is, Now). Cowley Publications (2006). ISBN 1-56101-280-7.
##Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro & Gargola, Daniel J & Talbert, Richard John Alexander. The Romans: From Village to Empire. Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0-19-511875-8.
##Bourgel, Jonathan. "The Jewish Christians' Move from Jerusalem as a Pragmatic Choice", in: D. Jaffé (ed.), [2] Studies in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity – Text and Context, (Collection: Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity; Leiden: Brill; 2010), 107-138.
##Dauphin, C. "De l'Église de la circoncision à l'Église de la gentilité – sur une nouvelle voie hors de l'impasse". Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Liber Annuus XLIII (1993).
##Dunn, James D.G. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Pp 33–34. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999). ISBN 0-8028-4498-7.
##Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins (2005). ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
##Endsjø, Dag Øistein. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2009.
##Esler, Philip F. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2004). ISBN 0-415-33312-1.
##Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. Mayfield (1985). ISBN 0-87484-696-X.
##Hinson, E. Glenn The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages. Abingdon Press (1996). ISBN 0-687-00603-1.
##Hunt, Emily Jane. Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian. Routledge (2003). ISBN 0-415-30405-9.
##Keck, Leander E. Paul and His Letters. Fortress Press (1988). ISBN 0-8006-2340-1.
##Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan. The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). University of Chicago Press (1975). ISBN 0-226-65371-4.
##Pritz, Ray A., Nazarene Jewish Christianity From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century. Magnes Press - E.J. Brill, Jerusalem - Leiden (1988).
##Richardson, Cyril Charles. Early Christian Fathers. Westminster John Knox Press (1953). ISBN 0-664-22747-3.
##Stark, Rodney.The Rise of Christianity. Harper Collins Pbk. Ed edition 1997. ISBN 0-06-067701-5
##Stambaugh, John E. & Balch, David L. The New Testament in Its Social Environment. John Knox Press (1986). ISBN 0-664-25012-2.
##Tabor, James D. "Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites", The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (1998).
##Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.
##Thiede, Carsten Peter. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Palgrabe Macmillan (2003). ISBN 1-4039-6143-3.
##Valantasis, Richard. The Making of the Self: Ancient and Modern Asceticism. James Clarke & Co (2008) ISBN 978-0-227-17281-0.[3]
##White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins (2004). ISBN 0-06-052655-6.
##Wilson, Barrie A. How Jesus Became Christian. New York: St. Martin's Press, (2008).
##Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Fortress Press (1992). ISBN 0-8006-2681-8.
##Wylen, Stephen M. The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction. Paulist Press (1995). ISBN 0-8091-3610-4.
External links[edit]
##Early Christians
##Ebionites
##Early Christian Writings
##Christian Classics Ethereal Library
##Early Church Texts
##The Early Christians in Their Own Words (free Ebook – English or Arabic)
##Catholic Encyclopedia: The Fathers of the Church
##PBS Frontline: The First Christians
##"The Old Testament of the Early Church" Revisited, Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.
##The Jewish Roman World of Jesus
##Early Christian Sites in Ireland


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity



























The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea

























































































































































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Christianity











Stained glass at St John's Ashfield, illustrating Jesus' description of himself, "I am the Good Shepherd", from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11.









































































































Category
Portal icon
WikiProject


  


Categories: Patristics
1st-century Christianity
Early Christianity
Christianity and Judaism related controversies









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Беларуская
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
Français
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Kiswahili
Latina
Lietuvių
Magyar
Македонски
മലയാളം
Nederlands
Nedersaksies
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
کوردی
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 May 2015, at 14:54.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity









History of early Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is a historical overview of early Christianity; for a description of early Christianity itself, see Early Christianity.



 Funerary stele of Licinia Amias on marble. One of the earliest Christian inscriptions found, it is from the early 3rd-century Vatican necropolis area, Rome.
Main article: History of Christianity
See also: History of late ancient Christianity
The history of early Christianity covers Christianity from its origins to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
The first part of the period, during the lifetimes of the Twelve Apostles, is traditionally believed to have been initiated by the Great Commission of Jesus (though some scholars[who?] dispute its historicity), and is called the Apostolic Age. The earliest followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic, Second Temple Jewish sect, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. Though Paul's influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament author,[1] the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed today. Early Christianity gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries and established itself as a predominantly gentile religion in the Roman Empire.
In the Ante-Nicene Period (literally before the First Council of Nicaea in 325), following the Apostolic Age, both incredible diversity and unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period emerged simultaneously. Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh rejection of Judaism and Jewish practices. By the beginning of the Nicene period, the Christian faith had spread throughout Western Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, and to North Africa and the East, see Early centers of Christianity.
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 and the promotion of Christianity by Emperor Constantine I in the Roman Empire are commonly used to mark the end of early Christianity, beginning the era of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.


Contents  [hide]
1 Origins 1.1 Background
1.2 Ministry of Jesus
1.3 Apostolic Age 1.3.1 Appellation
1.3.2 Judaism and Christianity

2 Post-apostolic period
3 Spread of Christianity
4 See also
5 Footnotes
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Origins[edit]
Main article: Origins of Christianity
See also Jesus in the Talmud
Background[edit]
See also: Cultural and historical background of Jesus
Jewish messianism has its root in the apocalyptic literature of the 2nd century BC to 1st century BC, promising a future "anointed" leader or Messiah to resurrect the Israelite "Kingdom of God", in place of the foreign rulers of the time. This corresponded with the Maccabean Revolt directed against the Seleucids. Following the fall of the Hasmonean kingdom, it was directed against the Roman administration of Iudaea Province, which, according to Josephus, began with the formation of the Zealots during the Census of Quirinius of 6 AD, though full scale open revolt did not occur until the First Jewish–Roman War in 66 AD. Historian H. H. Ben-Sasson has proposed that the "Crisis under Caligula" (37-41) was the "first open break" between Rome and the Jews.[2]
Judaism at this time was divided into antagonistic factions. The main camps were the Pharisees, Saducees, and Zealots, but also included other less influential sects. This led to further unrest, and the 1st century BC and 1st century AD saw a number of charismatic religious leaders, contributing to what would become the Mishnah of Rabbinic Judaism, including Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.
Ministry of Jesus[edit]
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The Gospel accounts show the ministry of Jesus as falling into this pattern of sectarian preachers with devoted disciples. According to the Gospel writers, Jesus preached for a period of one to three years when he was in his early 30s, in the early 1st century AD. The gospels give Jesus' method of teaching as involving parables, metaphor, allegory, proverbs, and a small number of direct sermons such as the Sermon on the Mount. His ministry of teaching, healing the sick and disabled and performing various miracles culminated in his execution at the hands of the Roman authorities in Jerusalem (but see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus). Shortly thereafter, a strong belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection spread rapidly through Jerusalem, beginning with his closest disciples, which led up to the traditional Day of Pentecost. This event provoked the Apostles to embark on a number of missionary campaigns to spread the "Good News", following the Great Commission handed down by Jesus.[citation needed]
Most New Testament scholars agree that Peter had some sort of special position among the Twelve.[3]
Apostolic Age[edit]
Main article: Apostolic Age



 The Cenacle on Mount Zion, claimed to be the location of the Last Supper and Pentecost. Bargil Pixner[4] claims the original Church of the Apostles is located under the current structure.
The Christian church sees "the Apostolic Age" as the foundation upon which its whole history is founded.[5] This period, roughly dated between the years 30 and 100 AD, produced writings traditionally attributed to the direct followers of Jesus Christ (the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers collections) and is thus associated with the apostles and their contemporaries. [6]
Earliest Christianity took the form of a Jewish eschatological faith. The apostles traveled to Jewish communities around the Mediterranean Sea, and attracted Jewish converts.[7] Within 10 years of the death of Jesus, apostles had spread Christianity from Jerusalem to Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Cyprus, Crete, and Rome.[8] The book of Acts reports that the early followers continued daily Temple attendance and traditional Jewish home prayer. Other passages in the canonical gospels reflect a similar observance of traditional Jewish piety such as fasting, reverence for the Torah (generally translated as "the Law" in English translations of the Bible) and observance of Jewish holy days.[9][10]
In the mid-1st century, in Antioch, Paul of Tarsus began preaching to Gentiles.[7] The new converts did not follow all "Jewish Law" (generally understood to mean Mosaic Law as the Halakha was still being formalized at the time) and refused to be circumcised,[11] as circumcision was considered repulsive in Hellenistic culture.[12] The resulting circumcision controversy was addressed at the Council of Jerusalem about the year 50. Paul, who was vocally supported by Peter, argued that circumcision was not a necessary practice.[13] The council agreed that converts could forgo circumcision, but other aspects of "Jewish Law" were deemed necessary.[14] Four years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. According to Alister McGrath, Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3.[13] The rift between Christianity and Judaism continued to grow and the relationship between Paul of Tarsus and Judaism and the topic of Biblical law in Christianity is still disputed today. The Council of Jamnia c. 85 is often stated to have condemned all who claimed the Messiah had already come, and Christianity in particular. However, the formulated prayer in question (birkat ha-minim) is considered by other scholars to be unremarkable in the history of Jewish and Christian relations. There is a paucity of evidence for Jewish persecution of "heretics" in general, or Christians in particular, in the period between 70 and 135. It is probable that the condemnation of Jamnia included many groups, of which the Christians were but one, and did not necessarily mean excommunication. That some of the later church fathers only recommended against synagogue attendance makes it improbable that an anti-Christian prayer was a common part of the synagogue liturgy. Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues for centuries.[15][16][17]
Appellation[edit]
The disciples were first called "Christians" in Antioch (as related in Acts 11:26). Accordingly, "Christians" (with the variant "Chrestians") was by 49 already a familiar term in the Latin-speaking capital of the Roman Empire. As the church spread throughout Greek-speaking Gentile lands, the appellation took prominence and eventually became the standard reference for followers of the faith. Ignatius of Antioch was the first known Christian to use the label in self-reference and made the earliest recorded use of the term Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός), around 100 AD.[18]



 Coin of Nerva "The blackmail of the Jewish tax lifted"
Judaism and Christianity[edit]
See also: Split of early Christianity and Judaism
During the late 1st century, Judaism was a legal religion with the protection of Roman law, worked out in compromise with the Roman state over two centuries, see Anti-Judaism in the Roman Empire for details. In contrast, Christianity was not legalized until the 313 Edict of Milan. Observant Jews had special rights, including the privilege of abstaining from civic pagan rites. Christians were initially identified with the Jewish religion by the Romans, but as they became more distinct, Christianity became a problem for Roman rulers. Around the year 98, the emperor Nerva decreed that Christians did not have to pay the annual tax upon the Jews, effectively recognizing them as distinct from Rabbinic Judaism. This opened the way to Christians being persecuted for disobedience to the emperor, as they refused to worship the state pantheon.[19][20][21]



James the Just, whose judgment was adopted in the decree of Acts 15:19-29, c. 50 AD.
Jewish Christians were among the earliest followers of Jesus and an important part of Judean society during the mid- to late 1st century. This movement was centered in Jerusalem (possibly in the Cenacle) and led by James the Just. They held faithfully to the Torah and Jewish law (which was still somewhat fluid in this time period), including acceptance of Gentile converts possibly based on a version of the Noachide laws (Acts 15 and Acts 21).
Disputes over the Mosaic law generated intense controversy in early Christianity. This is particularly notable in the mid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the fore. The issue was addressed at the Council of Jerusalem where Paul made an argument that circumcision was not a necessary practice, vocally supported by Peter, as documented in Acts 15. This position received widespread support and was summarized in a letter circulated in Antioch. Four years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. According to Alister McGrath, Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3.[13]
There was a slowly growing chasm between Christians and Jews, rather than a sudden split. However, certain events are perceived as pivotal in the growing rift between Christianity and Judaism. The Council of Jamnia c. 85 is often stated to have condemned all who claimed the Messiah had already come, and Christianity in particular. However, the formulated prayer in question (birkat ha-minim) is considered by other scholars to be unremarkable in the history of Jewish and Christian relations. There is a paucity of evidence for Jewish persecution of "heretics" in general, or Christians in particular, in the period between 70 and 135. It is probable that the condemnation of Jamnia included many groups, of which the Christians were but one, and did not necessarily mean excommunication. That some of the later church fathers only recommended against synagogue attendance makes it improbable that an anti-Christian prayer was a common part of the synagogue liturgy. Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues for centuries.[15][16][17] The true end of ancient Jewish Christianity occurred only in the 5th century. Gentile Christianity remained the sole strand of orthodoxy and imposed itself on the previously Jewish Christian sanctuaries, taking full control of those houses of worship by the end of the 5th century.[22]
Post-apostolic period[edit]
Main article: Ante-Nicene Period



Origen, one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Christianity throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries have generally been less studied than the periods that came before and after it. This is reflected in that it is usually referred to in terms of the adjacent periods with names as such "post-apostolic" (after the period of 1st century formative Christianity) and "ante-Nicene" (before the First Council of Nicaea). However, the 2nd and 3rd centuries are quite important in the development of Christianity.[23]
There is a relative lack of material for this period, compared with the later Church Father period. For example, a widely used collection (Ante-Nicene Fathers) includes most 2nd- and 3rd-century writings in nine volumes. This includes the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Apologists, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen of Alexandria and the New Testament Apocrypha, among others. In contrast, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (consisting mainly of Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom) fills twenty-eight volumes.[24]
The developments of this time are "multidirectional and not easily mapped". While the preceding and following periods were diverse, they possessed unifying characteristics lacking in this period. 1st-century Christianity possessed a basic cohesion based on the Pauline church movement, Jewish character, and self-identification as a messianic movement. The 2nd and 3rd centuries saw a sharp divorce from its early roots. There was an explicit rejection of then-modern Judaism and Jewish culture by the end of the 2nd century, with a growing body of adversus Judaeos literature. 4th- and 5th-century Christianity experienced imperial pressure and developed strong episcopal and unifying structure. The ante-Nicene period was without such authority and was more diverse. Many variations in this time defy neat categorizations, as various forms of Christianity interacted in a complex fashion to form the dynamic character of Christianity in this era.[25]
By the early 2nd century, Christians had agreed on a basic list of writings that would serve as their canon,[26] see Development of the New Testament canon, but interpretations of these works differed, often wildly.[27] In part to ensure a greater consistency in their teachings, by the end of the 1st century many Christian communities evolved a more structured hierarchy, with a central bishop, whose opinion held more weight in that city.[28] By 160, most communities had a bishop, who based his authority on the chain of succession from the apostles to himself.[29]
Bishops still had a freedom of interpretation. The competing versions of Christianity led many bishops who subscribed to what is now the mainstream version of Christianity to rally more closely together.[30] Bishops would call synods to discuss problems or doctrinal differences in certain regions; the first of these to be documented occurred in Roman Asia in about 160. Some bishops began to take on a more authoritative role for a region; in many cases, the bishop of the church located in the capital city of a province became the central authority for all churches in that province. These more centralized authorities were known as metropolitan churches headed by a Metropolitan bishop. The churches in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome exerted authority over groups of these metropolitan churches.[31]
Spread of Christianity[edit]




  Spread of Christianity to AD 325
  Spread of Christianity to AD 600
Main article: Early centers of Christianity
Early Christianity spread from city to city in the Hellenized Roman Empire and beyond into East Africa and South Asia. Apostles traveled extensively, establishing communities in major cities and regions throughout the Empire. The original church communities were founded by apostles (see Apostolic see) and numerous other Christians soldiers, merchants, and preachers[32] in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Armenia, Arabia, Greece, and other places.[33][34][35] Over 40 were established by the year 100,[33][35] many in Asia Minor, such as the seven churches of Asia. By the end of the 1st century, Christianity had already spread to Greece and Italy, some say as far as India, serving as foundations for the expansive spread of Christianity throughout the world. In 301 AD, the Kingdom of Armenia became the first to declare Christianity as its state religion, following the conversion of the Royal House of the Arsacids in Armenia.
Despite sporadic incidents of local persecution and a few periods of persecution on an empire-wide scale, the Christian religion continued its spread throughout the Mediterranean Basin.[36] There is no agreement as for how Christianity managed to spread so successfully prior to the Edict of Milan and Constantine favoring the creed and it is probably not possible to identify a single cause for this. Traditionally this has not been the subject of much research, as from a theological point of view the success was simply the natural consequence of people meeting what theologians considered the truth. In the influential book, The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark argues that the various sociological factors of Christianity which improved the quality of life of its adherents were crucial for its triumph over paganism.[37] Another factor that may have contributed to the success of Christianity was how the Christian promise of a general resurrection of the dead combined the traditional Greek belief that true immortality depended on the survival of the body with practical explanations of how this was going to actually happen at the end of times.[38]
See also[edit]
Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical) - church councils before the First Council of Nicaea
Christianity and Judaism
Christ myth theory
Hellenistic Judaism
History of Christianity
Persecution of Christians in the New Testament

History of Christianity:
 Early Christianity

Preceded by:
Historical
 background Early
 Christianity Followed by:
Late ancient
 Christianity

BC 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st
Footnotes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. F.L. Lucas (Oxford) entry on Paul
2.Jump up ^ H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, The Crisis Under Gaius Caligula, pages 254-256: "The reign of Gaius Caligula (37-41) witnessed the first open break between the Jews and the Julio-Claudian empire. Until then — if one accepts Sejanus' heyday and the trouble caused by the census after Archelaus' banishment — there was usually an atmosphere of understanding between the Jews and the empire ... These relations deteriorated seriously during Caligula's reign, and, though after his death the peace was outwardly re-established, considerable bitterness remained on both sides. ... Caligula ordered that a golden statue of himself be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem. ... Only Caligula's death, at the hands of Roman conspirators (41), prevented the outbreak of a Jewish-Roman war that might well have spread to the entire East."
3.Jump up ^ Theodore Stylianopoulos "Concerning the Biblical Foundation of Primacy", in Walter Kasper (editor), The Petrine Ministry (Paulist Press 2008 ISBN 978-0-80914334-4), pp. 43–44, citing John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. 3. Companions and Competitors (Knopf Doubleday 2001 ISBN 978-0-38546993-7), pp. 221–225, and others.
4.Jump up ^ Bargil Pixner, The Church of the Apostles found on Mount Zion, Biblical Archaeology Review 16.3 May/June 1990 [1]
5.Jump up ^ Brown (1993). Pg 10.
6.Jump up ^ Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997), pp. 5-15.
7.^ Jump up to: a b Bokenkotter, p. 18.
8.Jump up ^ Duffy, p. 3.
9.Jump up ^ White (2004). Pg 127.
10.Jump up ^ Ehrman (2005). Pg 187.
11.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 19.
12.Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature: "Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; , Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons."; Hodges, Frederick, M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme" (PDF). The Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (Fall 2001): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c McGrath (2006). Pp 174-175.
14.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 20.
15.^ Jump up to: a b Wylen (1995). Pg 190.
16.^ Jump up to: a b Berard (2006). Pp 112-113.
17.^ Jump up to: a b Wright (1992). Pp 164-165.
18.Jump up ^ Elwell & Comfort (2001). Pp 266, 828.
19.Jump up ^ Wylen (1995). Pp 190-192.
20.Jump up ^ Dunn (1999). Pp 33-34.
21.Jump up ^ Boatwright (2004). Pg 426.
22.Jump up ^ Dauphin (1993). Pp 235, 240-242.
23.Jump up ^ Siker (2000). Pg 231.
24.Jump up ^ Siker (2000). Pp 231-32.
25.Jump up ^ Siker (2000). Pp 232-34.
26.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, pp. 34–35.
27.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 32.
28.Jump up ^ Duffy, pp. 9–10.
29.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 33.
30.Jump up ^ Duffy, p. 13.
31.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 35.
32.Jump up ^ Franzen 29
33.^ Jump up to: a b Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004), p. 18, quote: "The story of how this tiny community of believers spread to many cities of the Roman Empire within less than a century is indeed a remarkable chapter in the history of humanity."
34.Jump up ^ Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), pp. 19–20
35.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 281, quote: "By the year 100, more than 40 Christian communities existed in cities around the Mediterranean, including two in North Africa, at Alexandria and Cyrene, and several in Italy."
36.Jump up ^ Michael Whitby, et al. eds. Christian Persecution, Martyrdom and Orthodoxy (2006) online edition
37.Jump up ^ Stark (1996)
38.Jump up ^ Endsjø (2009), pp. 159-217
References[edit]
Barclay, William. The Apostles' Creed. Westminster John Knox Press (1999). ISBN 0-664-25826-3.
Berard, Wayne Daniel. When Christians Were Jews (That Is, Now). Cowley Publications (2006). ISBN 1-56101-280-7.
Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro & Gargola, Daniel J & Talbert, Richard John Alexander. The Romans: From Village to Empire. Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0-19-511875-8.
Bockmuehl, Markus N.A. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press (2001). ISBN 0-521-79678-4.
Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-50584-1.
Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.
Dauphin, C. "De l'Église de la circoncision à l'Église de la gentilité – sur une nouvelle voie hors de l'impasse". Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Liber Annuus XLIII (1993).
Duffy, Eamon (1997). Saints and Sinners, a History of the Popes. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07332-1.
Dunn, James D.G. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999). ISBN 0-8028-4498-7.
Dunn, James D.G. The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Cambridge University Press (2003). ISBN 0-521-78694-0.
Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins (2005). ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
Elwell, Walter A. & Comfort, Philip Wesley. Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale House Publishers (2001). ISBN 0-8423-7089-7.
Endsjø, Dag Øistein. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. Palgrave Macmillan (2009). ISBN 978-0-230-61729-2.
Esler, Philip F. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2004). ISBN 0-415-33312-1.
Hunt, Emily Jane. Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian. Routledge (2003). ISBN 0-415-30405-9.
McGrath, Alister E. Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1-4051-0899-1.
Siker, Jeffrey S. "Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries", Chapter Nine in The Early Christian World. Philip F. Esler, editor. Routledge (2000). ISBN 0-415-24141-3.
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton University Press (1996). ISBN 0-06-067701-5.
Tabor, James D. "Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites", The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (1998).
Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.
Theissen, Gerd & Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press (1998). ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins (2004). ISBN 0-06-052655-6.
Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Fortress Press (1992). ISBN 0-8006-2681-8.
Wylen, Stephen M. The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction. Paulist Press (1995). ISBN 0-8091-3610-4.
Further reading[edit]
Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. SCM Press (2006). ISBN 0-334-02998-8.
Freedman, David Noel (Ed). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (2000). ISBN 0-8028-2400-5.
Keck, Leander E. Paul and His Letters. Fortress Press (1988). ISBN 0-8006-2340-1.
Mills, Watson E. Acts and Pauline Writings. Mercer University Press (1997). ISBN 0-86554-512-X.
Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan. The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). University of Chicago Press (1975). ISBN 0-226-65371-4.
Thiede, Carsten Peter. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Palgrabe Macmillan (2003). ISBN 1-4039-6143-3.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Portal:Pre-Nicene Christianity

PBS Frontline From Jesus to Christ, The first Christians, wrestling with their Jewish heritage
Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Christian Origins
Guide to Early Church Documents


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity


Centuries:1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st
 

Ministry of Jesus &
Apostolic Age
Jesus  (Ministry ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection)
   ·
 Holy Spirit ·
 Leadership  (Apostles ·
 Seventy disciples ·
 Paul the Apostle ·
 Council of Jerusalem)
   ·
 Great Commission ·
 New Testament  (Background ·
 Gospels ·
 Acts ·
 Pauline epistles ·
 General epistles ·
 Revelation)
 
 
The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea


Ante-Nicene Period
Judaism split ·
 Justin Martyr ·
 Ignatius ·
 Persecution ·
 Fathers ·
 Irenaeus ·
 Marcionism ·
 Canon ·
 Tertullian ·
 Montanism ·
 Origen
 

Late ancient
Constantine ·
 Monasticism ·
 Councils: Nicaea I ·
 Creed ·
 Athanasius ·
 Arianism ·
 Jerome ·
 Augustine ·
 Constantinople I ·
 Ephesus I ·
 Chalcedon
 

Eastern Christianity
Eastern Orthodoxy ·
 Church of the East ·
 Oriental Orthodoxy ·
 Chrysostom ·
 Nestorianism ·
 Iconoclasm ·
 Great Schism ·
 Fall of Constantinople ·
 Greece ·
 Georgia ·
 Egypt ·
 Syria ·
 Armenia ·
 Ethiopia ·
 Bulgaria ·
 Ottoman Empire ·
 Russia ·
 America ·
 20th century
 

Middle Ages
Pelagianism ·
 Gregory I ·
 Celtic ·
 Germanic ·
 Scandinavian ·
 Kievan Rus' ·
 Investiture ·
 Anselm ·
 Abelard ·
 Bernard of Clairvaux ·
 Bogomils ·
 Cathars ·
 Crusades ·
 Waldensians ·
 Inquisition ·
 Scholasticism ·
 Dominic ·
 Francis ·
 Bonaventure ·
 Aquinas ·
 Wycliffe ·
 Avignon ·
 Papal Schism ·
 Bohemian Reformation ·
 Hus ·
 Conciliarism
 

Protestant
 Reformation


Protestantism
Erasmus ·
 Five solae ·
 Eucharist ·
 Calvinist v. Arminian ·
 Arminianism ·
 Dort ·
 Wars
 

Lutheranism
Martin Luther ·
 95 Theses ·
 Diet of Worms ·
 Melanchthon ·
 Orthodoxy ·
 Eucharist ·
 Book of Concord
 

Calvinism
Zwingli ·
 Calvin ·
 Presbyterianism ·
 Scotland ·
 Knox ·
 TULIP ·
 Dort ·
 Three Forms of Unity ·
 Westminster
 

Anglicanism
Timeline ·
 Henry VIII ·
 Cranmer ·
 Settlement ·
 39 Articles ·
 Common Prayer ·
 Puritans ·
 Civil War
 

Anabaptism
Radical Reformation ·
 Grebel ·
 Swiss Brethren ·
 Müntzer ·
 Martyrs' Synod ·
 Menno Simons ·
 Smyth
 


Catholicism
Primacy development ·
 Papacy ·
 Timeline ·
 Lateran IV ·
 Trent ·
 Counter-Reformation ·
 Thomas More ·
 Leo X ·
 Guadalupe ·
 Jesuits ·
 Jansenists ·
 Xavier ·
 Monastery dissolution ·
 Wars ·
 Teresa ·
 Vatican I & II ·
 Modernism
 

1640–1789
Revivalism ·
 English denominations ·
 Baptists ·
 Congregationalism ·
 Great Awakening ·
 Methodism ·
 Millerism ·
 Pietism ·
 Neo- & Old Lutherans
 

1789–present
Camp meeting ·
 Holiness movement ·
 Independent Catholic churches ·
 Second Great Awakening ·
 Restoration Movement ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Mormonism ·
 Seventh-day Adventist * Adventism ·
 Third Great Awakening ·
 Azusa Revival ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Evangelicalism ·
 Jesus movement ·
 Mainline Protestant ·
 Pentecostalism ·
 Charismatics ·
 Liberation theology ·
 Christian right
 

Timeline ·
 Missions Timeline ·
 Martyrs ·
 Theology ·
 Eastern Orthodoxy ·
 Oriental Orthodoxy ·
 Protestantism ·
 Catholicism
 

  


Categories: Early Christianity









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Italiano
日本語
Русский
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 May 2015, at 14:13.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Christianity









History of early Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is a historical overview of early Christianity; for a description of early Christianity itself, see Early Christianity.



 Funerary stele of Licinia Amias on marble. One of the earliest Christian inscriptions found, it is from the early 3rd-century Vatican necropolis area, Rome.
Main article: History of Christianity
See also: History of late ancient Christianity
The history of early Christianity covers Christianity from its origins to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
The first part of the period, during the lifetimes of the Twelve Apostles, is traditionally believed to have been initiated by the Great Commission of Jesus (though some scholars[who?] dispute its historicity), and is called the Apostolic Age. The earliest followers of Jesus composed an apocalyptic, Second Temple Jewish sect, which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. Though Paul's influence on Christian thinking is said to be more significant than any other New Testament author,[1] the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed today. Early Christianity gradually grew apart from Judaism during the first two centuries and established itself as a predominantly gentile religion in the Roman Empire.
In the Ante-Nicene Period (literally before the First Council of Nicaea in 325), following the Apostolic Age, both incredible diversity and unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period emerged simultaneously. Part of the unifying trend was an increasingly harsh rejection of Judaism and Jewish practices. By the beginning of the Nicene period, the Christian faith had spread throughout Western Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, and to North Africa and the East, see Early centers of Christianity.
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 and the promotion of Christianity by Emperor Constantine I in the Roman Empire are commonly used to mark the end of early Christianity, beginning the era of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.


Contents  [hide]
1 Origins 1.1 Background
1.2 Ministry of Jesus
1.3 Apostolic Age 1.3.1 Appellation
1.3.2 Judaism and Christianity

2 Post-apostolic period
3 Spread of Christianity
4 See also
5 Footnotes
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Origins[edit]
Main article: Origins of Christianity
See also Jesus in the Talmud
Background[edit]
See also: Cultural and historical background of Jesus
Jewish messianism has its root in the apocalyptic literature of the 2nd century BC to 1st century BC, promising a future "anointed" leader or Messiah to resurrect the Israelite "Kingdom of God", in place of the foreign rulers of the time. This corresponded with the Maccabean Revolt directed against the Seleucids. Following the fall of the Hasmonean kingdom, it was directed against the Roman administration of Iudaea Province, which, according to Josephus, began with the formation of the Zealots during the Census of Quirinius of 6 AD, though full scale open revolt did not occur until the First Jewish–Roman War in 66 AD. Historian H. H. Ben-Sasson has proposed that the "Crisis under Caligula" (37-41) was the "first open break" between Rome and the Jews.[2]
Judaism at this time was divided into antagonistic factions. The main camps were the Pharisees, Saducees, and Zealots, but also included other less influential sects. This led to further unrest, and the 1st century BC and 1st century AD saw a number of charismatic religious leaders, contributing to what would become the Mishnah of Rabbinic Judaism, including Yochanan ben Zakai and Hanina Ben Dosa.
Ministry of Jesus[edit]
Main article: Ministry of Jesus
The Gospel accounts show the ministry of Jesus as falling into this pattern of sectarian preachers with devoted disciples. According to the Gospel writers, Jesus preached for a period of one to three years when he was in his early 30s, in the early 1st century AD. The gospels give Jesus' method of teaching as involving parables, metaphor, allegory, proverbs, and a small number of direct sermons such as the Sermon on the Mount. His ministry of teaching, healing the sick and disabled and performing various miracles culminated in his execution at the hands of the Roman authorities in Jerusalem (but see also Responsibility for the death of Jesus). Shortly thereafter, a strong belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection spread rapidly through Jerusalem, beginning with his closest disciples, which led up to the traditional Day of Pentecost. This event provoked the Apostles to embark on a number of missionary campaigns to spread the "Good News", following the Great Commission handed down by Jesus.[citation needed]
Most New Testament scholars agree that Peter had some sort of special position among the Twelve.[3]
Apostolic Age[edit]
Main article: Apostolic Age



 The Cenacle on Mount Zion, claimed to be the location of the Last Supper and Pentecost. Bargil Pixner[4] claims the original Church of the Apostles is located under the current structure.
The Christian church sees "the Apostolic Age" as the foundation upon which its whole history is founded.[5] This period, roughly dated between the years 30 and 100 AD, produced writings traditionally attributed to the direct followers of Jesus Christ (the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers collections) and is thus associated with the apostles and their contemporaries. [6]
Earliest Christianity took the form of a Jewish eschatological faith. The apostles traveled to Jewish communities around the Mediterranean Sea, and attracted Jewish converts.[7] Within 10 years of the death of Jesus, apostles had spread Christianity from Jerusalem to Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Cyprus, Crete, and Rome.[8] The book of Acts reports that the early followers continued daily Temple attendance and traditional Jewish home prayer. Other passages in the canonical gospels reflect a similar observance of traditional Jewish piety such as fasting, reverence for the Torah (generally translated as "the Law" in English translations of the Bible) and observance of Jewish holy days.[9][10]
In the mid-1st century, in Antioch, Paul of Tarsus began preaching to Gentiles.[7] The new converts did not follow all "Jewish Law" (generally understood to mean Mosaic Law as the Halakha was still being formalized at the time) and refused to be circumcised,[11] as circumcision was considered repulsive in Hellenistic culture.[12] The resulting circumcision controversy was addressed at the Council of Jerusalem about the year 50. Paul, who was vocally supported by Peter, argued that circumcision was not a necessary practice.[13] The council agreed that converts could forgo circumcision, but other aspects of "Jewish Law" were deemed necessary.[14] Four years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. According to Alister McGrath, Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3.[13] The rift between Christianity and Judaism continued to grow and the relationship between Paul of Tarsus and Judaism and the topic of Biblical law in Christianity is still disputed today. The Council of Jamnia c. 85 is often stated to have condemned all who claimed the Messiah had already come, and Christianity in particular. However, the formulated prayer in question (birkat ha-minim) is considered by other scholars to be unremarkable in the history of Jewish and Christian relations. There is a paucity of evidence for Jewish persecution of "heretics" in general, or Christians in particular, in the period between 70 and 135. It is probable that the condemnation of Jamnia included many groups, of which the Christians were but one, and did not necessarily mean excommunication. That some of the later church fathers only recommended against synagogue attendance makes it improbable that an anti-Christian prayer was a common part of the synagogue liturgy. Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues for centuries.[15][16][17]
Appellation[edit]
The disciples were first called "Christians" in Antioch (as related in Acts 11:26). Accordingly, "Christians" (with the variant "Chrestians") was by 49 already a familiar term in the Latin-speaking capital of the Roman Empire. As the church spread throughout Greek-speaking Gentile lands, the appellation took prominence and eventually became the standard reference for followers of the faith. Ignatius of Antioch was the first known Christian to use the label in self-reference and made the earliest recorded use of the term Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός), around 100 AD.[18]



 Coin of Nerva "The blackmail of the Jewish tax lifted"
Judaism and Christianity[edit]
See also: Split of early Christianity and Judaism
During the late 1st century, Judaism was a legal religion with the protection of Roman law, worked out in compromise with the Roman state over two centuries, see Anti-Judaism in the Roman Empire for details. In contrast, Christianity was not legalized until the 313 Edict of Milan. Observant Jews had special rights, including the privilege of abstaining from civic pagan rites. Christians were initially identified with the Jewish religion by the Romans, but as they became more distinct, Christianity became a problem for Roman rulers. Around the year 98, the emperor Nerva decreed that Christians did not have to pay the annual tax upon the Jews, effectively recognizing them as distinct from Rabbinic Judaism. This opened the way to Christians being persecuted for disobedience to the emperor, as they refused to worship the state pantheon.[19][20][21]



James the Just, whose judgment was adopted in the decree of Acts 15:19-29, c. 50 AD.
Jewish Christians were among the earliest followers of Jesus and an important part of Judean society during the mid- to late 1st century. This movement was centered in Jerusalem (possibly in the Cenacle) and led by James the Just. They held faithfully to the Torah and Jewish law (which was still somewhat fluid in this time period), including acceptance of Gentile converts possibly based on a version of the Noachide laws (Acts 15 and Acts 21).
Disputes over the Mosaic law generated intense controversy in early Christianity. This is particularly notable in the mid-1st century, when the circumcision controversy came to the fore. The issue was addressed at the Council of Jerusalem where Paul made an argument that circumcision was not a necessary practice, vocally supported by Peter, as documented in Acts 15. This position received widespread support and was summarized in a letter circulated in Antioch. Four years after the Council of Jerusalem, Paul wrote to the Galatians about the issue, which had become a serious controversy in their region. According to Alister McGrath, Paul considered it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus and addressed the issue with great detail in Galatians 3.[13]
There was a slowly growing chasm between Christians and Jews, rather than a sudden split. However, certain events are perceived as pivotal in the growing rift between Christianity and Judaism. The Council of Jamnia c. 85 is often stated to have condemned all who claimed the Messiah had already come, and Christianity in particular. However, the formulated prayer in question (birkat ha-minim) is considered by other scholars to be unremarkable in the history of Jewish and Christian relations. There is a paucity of evidence for Jewish persecution of "heretics" in general, or Christians in particular, in the period between 70 and 135. It is probable that the condemnation of Jamnia included many groups, of which the Christians were but one, and did not necessarily mean excommunication. That some of the later church fathers only recommended against synagogue attendance makes it improbable that an anti-Christian prayer was a common part of the synagogue liturgy. Jewish Christians continued to worship in synagogues for centuries.[15][16][17] The true end of ancient Jewish Christianity occurred only in the 5th century. Gentile Christianity remained the sole strand of orthodoxy and imposed itself on the previously Jewish Christian sanctuaries, taking full control of those houses of worship by the end of the 5th century.[22]
Post-apostolic period[edit]
Main article: Ante-Nicene Period



Origen, one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Christianity throughout the 2nd and 3rd centuries have generally been less studied than the periods that came before and after it. This is reflected in that it is usually referred to in terms of the adjacent periods with names as such "post-apostolic" (after the period of 1st century formative Christianity) and "ante-Nicene" (before the First Council of Nicaea). However, the 2nd and 3rd centuries are quite important in the development of Christianity.[23]
There is a relative lack of material for this period, compared with the later Church Father period. For example, a widely used collection (Ante-Nicene Fathers) includes most 2nd- and 3rd-century writings in nine volumes. This includes the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Apologists, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen of Alexandria and the New Testament Apocrypha, among others. In contrast, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (consisting mainly of Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom) fills twenty-eight volumes.[24]
The developments of this time are "multidirectional and not easily mapped". While the preceding and following periods were diverse, they possessed unifying characteristics lacking in this period. 1st-century Christianity possessed a basic cohesion based on the Pauline church movement, Jewish character, and self-identification as a messianic movement. The 2nd and 3rd centuries saw a sharp divorce from its early roots. There was an explicit rejection of then-modern Judaism and Jewish culture by the end of the 2nd century, with a growing body of adversus Judaeos literature. 4th- and 5th-century Christianity experienced imperial pressure and developed strong episcopal and unifying structure. The ante-Nicene period was without such authority and was more diverse. Many variations in this time defy neat categorizations, as various forms of Christianity interacted in a complex fashion to form the dynamic character of Christianity in this era.[25]
By the early 2nd century, Christians had agreed on a basic list of writings that would serve as their canon,[26] see Development of the New Testament canon, but interpretations of these works differed, often wildly.[27] In part to ensure a greater consistency in their teachings, by the end of the 1st century many Christian communities evolved a more structured hierarchy, with a central bishop, whose opinion held more weight in that city.[28] By 160, most communities had a bishop, who based his authority on the chain of succession from the apostles to himself.[29]
Bishops still had a freedom of interpretation. The competing versions of Christianity led many bishops who subscribed to what is now the mainstream version of Christianity to rally more closely together.[30] Bishops would call synods to discuss problems or doctrinal differences in certain regions; the first of these to be documented occurred in Roman Asia in about 160. Some bishops began to take on a more authoritative role for a region; in many cases, the bishop of the church located in the capital city of a province became the central authority for all churches in that province. These more centralized authorities were known as metropolitan churches headed by a Metropolitan bishop. The churches in Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome exerted authority over groups of these metropolitan churches.[31]
Spread of Christianity[edit]




  Spread of Christianity to AD 325
  Spread of Christianity to AD 600
Main article: Early centers of Christianity
Early Christianity spread from city to city in the Hellenized Roman Empire and beyond into East Africa and South Asia. Apostles traveled extensively, establishing communities in major cities and regions throughout the Empire. The original church communities were founded by apostles (see Apostolic see) and numerous other Christians soldiers, merchants, and preachers[32] in northern Africa, Asia Minor, Armenia, Arabia, Greece, and other places.[33][34][35] Over 40 were established by the year 100,[33][35] many in Asia Minor, such as the seven churches of Asia. By the end of the 1st century, Christianity had already spread to Greece and Italy, some say as far as India, serving as foundations for the expansive spread of Christianity throughout the world. In 301 AD, the Kingdom of Armenia became the first to declare Christianity as its state religion, following the conversion of the Royal House of the Arsacids in Armenia.
Despite sporadic incidents of local persecution and a few periods of persecution on an empire-wide scale, the Christian religion continued its spread throughout the Mediterranean Basin.[36] There is no agreement as for how Christianity managed to spread so successfully prior to the Edict of Milan and Constantine favoring the creed and it is probably not possible to identify a single cause for this. Traditionally this has not been the subject of much research, as from a theological point of view the success was simply the natural consequence of people meeting what theologians considered the truth. In the influential book, The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark argues that the various sociological factors of Christianity which improved the quality of life of its adherents were crucial for its triumph over paganism.[37] Another factor that may have contributed to the success of Christianity was how the Christian promise of a general resurrection of the dead combined the traditional Greek belief that true immortality depended on the survival of the body with practical explanations of how this was going to actually happen at the end of times.[38]
See also[edit]
Ancient church councils (pre-ecumenical) - church councils before the First Council of Nicaea
Christianity and Judaism
Christ myth theory
Hellenistic Judaism
History of Christianity
Persecution of Christians in the New Testament

History of Christianity:
 Early Christianity

Preceded by:
Historical
 background Early
 Christianity Followed by:
Late ancient
 Christianity

BC 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st
Footnotes[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ed. F.L. Lucas (Oxford) entry on Paul
2.Jump up ^ H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, The Crisis Under Gaius Caligula, pages 254-256: "The reign of Gaius Caligula (37-41) witnessed the first open break between the Jews and the Julio-Claudian empire. Until then — if one accepts Sejanus' heyday and the trouble caused by the census after Archelaus' banishment — there was usually an atmosphere of understanding between the Jews and the empire ... These relations deteriorated seriously during Caligula's reign, and, though after his death the peace was outwardly re-established, considerable bitterness remained on both sides. ... Caligula ordered that a golden statue of himself be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem. ... Only Caligula's death, at the hands of Roman conspirators (41), prevented the outbreak of a Jewish-Roman war that might well have spread to the entire East."
3.Jump up ^ Theodore Stylianopoulos "Concerning the Biblical Foundation of Primacy", in Walter Kasper (editor), The Petrine Ministry (Paulist Press 2008 ISBN 978-0-80914334-4), pp. 43–44, citing John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. 3. Companions and Competitors (Knopf Doubleday 2001 ISBN 978-0-38546993-7), pp. 221–225, and others.
4.Jump up ^ Bargil Pixner, The Church of the Apostles found on Mount Zion, Biblical Archaeology Review 16.3 May/June 1990 [1]
5.Jump up ^ Brown (1993). Pg 10.
6.Jump up ^ Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997), pp. 5-15.
7.^ Jump up to: a b Bokenkotter, p. 18.
8.Jump up ^ Duffy, p. 3.
9.Jump up ^ White (2004). Pg 127.
10.Jump up ^ Ehrman (2005). Pg 187.
11.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 19.
12.Jump up ^ Jewish Encyclopedia: Circumcision: In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature: "Contact with Grecian life, especially at the games of the arena [which involved nudity], made this distinction obnoxious to the Hellenists, or antinationalists; and the consequence was their attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ("making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18; , Tosef., Shab. xv. 9; Yeb. 72a, b; Yer. Peah i. 16b; Yeb. viii. 9a). All the more did the law-observing Jews defy the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting circumcision (I Macc. i. 48, 60; ii. 46); and the Jewish women showed their loyalty to the Law, even at the risk of their lives, by themselves circumcising their sons."; Hodges, Frederick, M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme" (PDF). The Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (Fall 2001): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 2007-07-24.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c McGrath (2006). Pp 174-175.
14.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 20.
15.^ Jump up to: a b Wylen (1995). Pg 190.
16.^ Jump up to: a b Berard (2006). Pp 112-113.
17.^ Jump up to: a b Wright (1992). Pp 164-165.
18.Jump up ^ Elwell & Comfort (2001). Pp 266, 828.
19.Jump up ^ Wylen (1995). Pp 190-192.
20.Jump up ^ Dunn (1999). Pp 33-34.
21.Jump up ^ Boatwright (2004). Pg 426.
22.Jump up ^ Dauphin (1993). Pp 235, 240-242.
23.Jump up ^ Siker (2000). Pg 231.
24.Jump up ^ Siker (2000). Pp 231-32.
25.Jump up ^ Siker (2000). Pp 232-34.
26.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, pp. 34–35.
27.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 32.
28.Jump up ^ Duffy, pp. 9–10.
29.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 33.
30.Jump up ^ Duffy, p. 13.
31.Jump up ^ Bokenkotter, p. 35.
32.Jump up ^ Franzen 29
33.^ Jump up to: a b Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (2004), p. 18, quote: "The story of how this tiny community of believers spread to many cities of the Roman Empire within less than a century is indeed a remarkable chapter in the history of humanity."
34.Jump up ^ Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (2005), pp. 19–20
35.^ Jump up to: a b Hitchcock, Geography of Religion (2004), p. 281, quote: "By the year 100, more than 40 Christian communities existed in cities around the Mediterranean, including two in North Africa, at Alexandria and Cyrene, and several in Italy."
36.Jump up ^ Michael Whitby, et al. eds. Christian Persecution, Martyrdom and Orthodoxy (2006) online edition
37.Jump up ^ Stark (1996)
38.Jump up ^ Endsjø (2009), pp. 159-217
References[edit]
Barclay, William. The Apostles' Creed. Westminster John Knox Press (1999). ISBN 0-664-25826-3.
Berard, Wayne Daniel. When Christians Were Jews (That Is, Now). Cowley Publications (2006). ISBN 1-56101-280-7.
Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro & Gargola, Daniel J & Talbert, Richard John Alexander. The Romans: From Village to Empire. Oxford University Press (2004). ISBN 0-19-511875-8.
Bockmuehl, Markus N.A. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press (2001). ISBN 0-521-79678-4.
Bokenkotter, Thomas (2004). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-50584-1.
Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.
Dauphin, C. "De l'Église de la circoncision à l'Église de la gentilité – sur une nouvelle voie hors de l'impasse". Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Liber Annuus XLIII (1993).
Duffy, Eamon (1997). Saints and Sinners, a History of the Popes. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07332-1.
Dunn, James D.G. Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (1999). ISBN 0-8028-4498-7.
Dunn, James D.G. The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Cambridge University Press (2003). ISBN 0-521-78694-0.
Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperCollins (2005). ISBN 0-06-073817-0.
Elwell, Walter A. & Comfort, Philip Wesley. Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale House Publishers (2001). ISBN 0-8423-7089-7.
Endsjø, Dag Øistein. Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity. Palgrave Macmillan (2009). ISBN 978-0-230-61729-2.
Esler, Philip F. The Early Christian World. Routledge (2004). ISBN 0-415-33312-1.
Hunt, Emily Jane. Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian. Routledge (2003). ISBN 0-415-30405-9.
McGrath, Alister E. Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). ISBN 1-4051-0899-1.
Siker, Jeffrey S. "Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries", Chapter Nine in The Early Christian World. Philip F. Esler, editor. Routledge (2000). ISBN 0-415-24141-3.
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. Princeton University Press (1996). ISBN 0-06-067701-5.
Tabor, James D. "Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites", The Jewish Roman World of Jesus. Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (1998).
Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.
Theissen, Gerd & Merz, Annette. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press (1998). ISBN 0-8006-3122-6.
White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins (2004). ISBN 0-06-052655-6.
Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Fortress Press (1992). ISBN 0-8006-2681-8.
Wylen, Stephen M. The Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction. Paulist Press (1995). ISBN 0-8091-3610-4.
Further reading[edit]
Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. SCM Press (2006). ISBN 0-334-02998-8.
Freedman, David Noel (Ed). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (2000). ISBN 0-8028-2400-5.
Keck, Leander E. Paul and His Letters. Fortress Press (1988). ISBN 0-8006-2340-1.
Mills, Watson E. Acts and Pauline Writings. Mercer University Press (1997). ISBN 0-86554-512-X.
Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan. The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). University of Chicago Press (1975). ISBN 0-226-65371-4.
Thiede, Carsten Peter. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Palgrabe Macmillan (2003). ISBN 1-4039-6143-3.
External links[edit]
 Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Portal:Pre-Nicene Christianity

PBS Frontline From Jesus to Christ, The first Christians, wrestling with their Jewish heritage
Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Christian Origins
Guide to Early Church Documents


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
History of Christianity


Centuries:1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st
 

Ministry of Jesus &
Apostolic Age
Jesus  (Ministry ·
 Crucifixion ·
 Resurrection)
   ·
 Holy Spirit ·
 Leadership  (Apostles ·
 Seventy disciples ·
 Paul the Apostle ·
 Council of Jerusalem)
   ·
 Great Commission ·
 New Testament  (Background ·
 Gospels ·
 Acts ·
 Pauline epistles ·
 General epistles ·
 Revelation)
 
 
The Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicaea


Ante-Nicene Period
Judaism split ·
 Justin Martyr ·
 Ignatius ·
 Persecution ·
 Fathers ·
 Irenaeus ·
 Marcionism ·
 Canon ·
 Tertullian ·
 Montanism ·
 Origen
 

Late ancient
Constantine ·
 Monasticism ·
 Councils: Nicaea I ·
 Creed ·
 Athanasius ·
 Arianism ·
 Jerome ·
 Augustine ·
 Constantinople I ·
 Ephesus I ·
 Chalcedon
 

Eastern Christianity
Eastern Orthodoxy ·
 Church of the East ·
 Oriental Orthodoxy ·
 Chrysostom ·
 Nestorianism ·
 Iconoclasm ·
 Great Schism ·
 Fall of Constantinople ·
 Greece ·
 Georgia ·
 Egypt ·
 Syria ·
 Armenia ·
 Ethiopia ·
 Bulgaria ·
 Ottoman Empire ·
 Russia ·
 America ·
 20th century
 

Middle Ages
Pelagianism ·
 Gregory I ·
 Celtic ·
 Germanic ·
 Scandinavian ·
 Kievan Rus' ·
 Investiture ·
 Anselm ·
 Abelard ·
 Bernard of Clairvaux ·
 Bogomils ·
 Cathars ·
 Crusades ·
 Waldensians ·
 Inquisition ·
 Scholasticism ·
 Dominic ·
 Francis ·
 Bonaventure ·
 Aquinas ·
 Wycliffe ·
 Avignon ·
 Papal Schism ·
 Bohemian Reformation ·
 Hus ·
 Conciliarism
 

Protestant
 Reformation


Protestantism
Erasmus ·
 Five solae ·
 Eucharist ·
 Calvinist v. Arminian ·
 Arminianism ·
 Dort ·
 Wars
 

Lutheranism
Martin Luther ·
 95 Theses ·
 Diet of Worms ·
 Melanchthon ·
 Orthodoxy ·
 Eucharist ·
 Book of Concord
 

Calvinism
Zwingli ·
 Calvin ·
 Presbyterianism ·
 Scotland ·
 Knox ·
 TULIP ·
 Dort ·
 Three Forms of Unity ·
 Westminster
 

Anglicanism
Timeline ·
 Henry VIII ·
 Cranmer ·
 Settlement ·
 39 Articles ·
 Common Prayer ·
 Puritans ·
 Civil War
 

Anabaptism
Radical Reformation ·
 Grebel ·
 Swiss Brethren ·
 Müntzer ·
 Martyrs' Synod ·
 Menno Simons ·
 Smyth
 


Catholicism
Primacy development ·
 Papacy ·
 Timeline ·
 Lateran IV ·
 Trent ·
 Counter-Reformation ·
 Thomas More ·
 Leo X ·
 Guadalupe ·
 Jesuits ·
 Jansenists ·
 Xavier ·
 Monastery dissolution ·
 Wars ·
 Teresa ·
 Vatican I & II ·
 Modernism
 

1640–1789
Revivalism ·
 English denominations ·
 Baptists ·
 Congregationalism ·
 Great Awakening ·
 Methodism ·
 Millerism ·
 Pietism ·
 Neo- & Old Lutherans
 

1789–present
Camp meeting ·
 Holiness movement ·
 Independent Catholic churches ·
 Second Great Awakening ·
 Restoration Movement ·
 Jehovah's Witnesses ·
 Mormonism ·
 Seventh-day Adventist * Adventism ·
 Third Great Awakening ·
 Azusa Revival ·
 Ecumenism ·
 Evangelicalism ·
 Jesus movement ·
 Mainline Protestant ·
 Pentecostalism ·
 Charismatics ·
 Liberation theology ·
 Christian right
 

Timeline ·
 Missions Timeline ·
 Martyrs ·
 Theology ·
 Eastern Orthodoxy ·
 Oriental Orthodoxy ·
 Protestantism ·
 Catholicism
 

  


Categories: Early Christianity









Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Italiano
日本語
Русский
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 May 2015, at 14:13.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Christianity









Hellenistic Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Jews and Judaism
Star of David
Etymology ·
 Who is a Jew?
 Jewish peoplehood ·
 Jewish identity
 

Religion[show]






















Texts[show]
























Communities[show]






















Population[show]
































































































Denominations[show]















Culture[show]













Languages[show]













History[show]









































Politics[show]












Category Category
Portal icon Judaism portal
WikiProject WikiProject

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the fall of the Roman Empire and the Muslim conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria (Egypt) and Antioch (Northern Syria—now Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both founded at the end of the 4th century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).
The major literary product of the contact of Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koiné Greek, specifically, Jewish Koiné Greek.
The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century CE, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its universalist tradition.


Contents  [hide]
1 Hellenism
2 Hasmonean civil war
3 Influence
4 ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek’
5 Decline of the Hellenistai and partial conversion to Christianity
6 Cultural legacy 6.1 Widespread influence beyond Second Temple Judaism
6.2 First synagogues in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East
6.3 Influence on Levantine Byzantine traditions
7 Notable Hellenized Jews 7.1 Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period
7.2 Herodian and Roman Period
7.3 Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Era
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading

Hellenism[edit]



 Map of Alexander's empire, extending east and south of Macedonia.
The conquests of Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BCE spread Greek culture and colonization—a process of cultural change called Hellenization—over non-Greek lands, including the Levant. This gave rise to the Hellenistic age, which sought to create a common or universal culture in the Alexandrian empire based on that of 5th- and 4th-century BCE Athens (see also Age of Pericles), along with a fusion of Near Eastern cultures.[1] The period is characterized by a new wave of Greek colonization which established Greek cities and Kingdoms in Asia and Africa,[2] the most famous being Alexandria in Egypt. New cities were established composed of colonists who came from different parts of the Greek world, and not from a specific metropolis ("mother city") as before.[2]
These Jews living in countries west of the Levant formed the Hellenistic diaspora. The Egyptian diaspora is the most well-known of these.[3] It witnessed close ties, indeed the firm economic integration, of Judea with the Ptolemaic kingdom ruled from Alexandria, and the friendly relations which existed between the royal court and the leaders of the Jewish community. This was a diaspora of choice not of imposition. Information is less robust regarding diasporas in other territories. It suggests that the situation was by and large the same as it was in Egypt.[4]
Jewish life in both Judea and the diaspora was influenced by the culture and language of Hellenism, and in Judea relations deteriorated between Hellenized Jews and traditionalists.
For reasons not fully understood, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes banned key Jewish religious rites and traditions in Judea, causing traditionalists to revolt against the Greek ruler. Out of this revolt was formed an independent Jewish kingdom known as the Hasmonaean Dynasty, which lasted from 165 BCE to 63 BCE. The Hasmonean Dynasty eventually disintegrated in a civil war, which coincided with civil wars in Rome:
Hasmonean civil war[edit]
The Hasmonean civil war began when a younger brother, Aristobulus II, who supported the Sadducee Jews, rebelled in 67 BCE against his elder brother, Hyrcanus II, who supported the Pharisee Jews (their mother, Salome Alexandra, supported the Pharisees, but their father who died before Salome, Alexander Jannaeus, supported the Sadducees). Seizing this opportunity, a third faction of Jews, primarily Idumeans centered in Maresha, and later led by Antipater and his son Herod, sought to re-install the elder brother Hyrcanus II; according to Josephus, Antipater aimed at controlling Judea by putting the weak Hyrcanus back onto the throne. Antigonus, the nephew of Hyrcanus II, and son of Aristobulus II, met with Julius Caesar to say that his uncle Hyrcanus was a puppet in the hands of Pompey and Antipater, and asked The Cæsar's permission to overthrow Antipater in 47 BCE, whilst the civil war and later conspiracy against Julius Cæsar was after Pompey's civil war had ended, but the assassination plot against Julius having only just begun. After Julius ignored this warning by Antigonus—only to be famously assassinated by Pompey's allies, the optimates, three years later—Antigonus enlisted the aid of Parthians (who were already at war with Rome, and wanted to keep this competing empire, Rome, from gaining more land near the Parthians' own power-base) in 42 BCE, and with the Parthians, Antigonus was able to defeat Herod (the same year, back in Rome, Pompey's side began temporarily losing, again, to Cæsar's proteges), but Antigonus ruled Judea for only 3 years until Roman Legions aided Herod, as the Roman Civil Wars came to an end and Rome solidified the new eastern extents of their empire.
The last Hasmonean ruler, Antigonus II Mattathias, was captured by Herod and executed in 37 BCE.
The main issue which separated the Hellenized Jews from rebellious and traditional Jews was the application of biblical laws in a Hellenistic (or Roman or other non-Jewish) empire.[5]
Influence[edit]
The major literary product of the contact of Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint, as well as the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.) dating to the period. Important sources are Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Some scholars[6] consider Paul of Tarsus to be a Hellenist as well, even though he himself claimed to be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6).
Philo of Alexandria was an important apologist of Judaism, presenting it as a tradition of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo could draw on Jewish tradition to use customs which Greeks thought as primitive or exotic as the basis for metaphors: such as "circumcision of the heart" in the pursuit of virtue.[7] Consequently, Hellenistic Judaism emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) as emanations from God.
Beyond Tarsus, Alexandretta, Antioch and Northwestern Syria (the main "Cilician and Asiatic" centers of Hellenistic Judaism in the Levant), the second half of the Second Temple period witnessed an acceleration of Hellenization in Israel itself, with Jewish high priests and aristocrats alike adopting Greek names:

‘Ḥoni’ became ‘Menelaus’; ‘Joshua’ became ‘Jason’ or ‘Jesus.’ The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people [...] The inscription forbidding strangers to advance beyond a certain point in the Temple was in Greek; and was probably made necessary by the presence of numerous Jews from Greek-speaking countries at the time of the festivals (comp. the "murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews," Acts vi. 1). The coffers in the Temple which contained the shekel contributions were marked with Greek letters (Sheḳ. iii. 2). It is therefore no wonder that there were synagogues of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics in the Holy City itself (Acts vi. 9).[8]
‘There is neither Jew nor Greek’[edit]
Inherent ethno-cultural and social tensions within the Hellenistic Jewish world were partially surmounted by the progressive emergence of a new, typically Antiochian Middle-Eastern Greek doctrine (doxa) spearheaded by Paul the Apostle (himself a Hellenized Cilician Jew) and his followers, be they -
1.established, autochthonous Hellenized Cilician-Western Syrian Jews (themselves descendants of Babylonian Jewish migrants who had adopted early on various elements of Greek culture and civilization while retaining a generally conservative, strict attachment to Halakha),
2.heathen, 'Classical’ Greeks, Greco-Macedonian and Greco-Syrian gentiles, or
3.the local, autochthonous descendants of Greek or Greco-Syrian converts to mainstream Judaism – known as proselytes (Greek: προσήλυτος/proselytes) and Greek-speaking Jews born of mixed marriages.
Paul’s efforts were probably facilitated by the arrival of a fourth wave of Greek-speaking newcomers to Cilicia/Southern Turkey and Northwestern Syria: Cypriot Jews and ‘Cyrenian’ (Libyan) Jewish migrants of non-Egyptian North African Jewish origin, as well as gentile Roman settlers from Italy- many of whom already spoke fluent Koine Greek and/or sent their children to Greek schools. Some scholars believe that, at the time, these Cypriot and Cyrenian North African Jewish migrants were generally less affluent than the autochthonous Cilician-Syrian Jews and practiced a more ‘liberal’ form of Judaism, more propitious for the formation of a new canon:
[North African] Cyrenian Jews were of sufficient importance in those days to have their name associated with a synagogue at Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). And when the persecution arose about Stephen [a Hellenized Syrian-Cilician Jew], some of these Jews of Cyrene who had been converted at Jerusalem, were scattered abroad and came with others to Antioch and [initially] preached the word "unto the Jews only" (Acts 11:19, 20 the King James Version), and one of them, Lucius, became a prophet in the early church there [the nascent Greek ‘Orthodox’ community of Antioch].[9]
These subtle, progressive socio-cultural shifts are somehow summarized succinctly in Chapter 3 of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians:
There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female... (Galatians 3:28).[10]
Decline of the Hellenistai and partial conversion to Christianity[edit]



 Moses. Fresco from Dura Europos synagogue
The reasons for the decline of Hellenistic Judaism are obscure. It may be that it was marginalized by, absorbed into, or became Early Christianity (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews). The Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles report that, after his initial focus on the conversion of Hellenized Jews across Anatolia, Macedonia, Thrace and Northern Syria without criticizing their laws and traditions,[11][12] Paul of Tarsus eventually preferred to evangelize communities of Greek and Macedonian proselytes and Godfearers, or Greek circles sympathetic to Judaism: the Apostolic Decree allowing converts to forego circumcision made Christianity a more attractive option for interested pagans than Rabbinic Judaism, which required ritual circumcision for converts (see Brit milah). See also Circumcision controversy in early Christianity[13][14] and the Abrogation of Old Covenant laws.
The attractiveness of Christianity may, however, have suffered a setback with its being explicitly outlawed in the 80s CE by Domitian as a "Jewish superstition", while Judaism retained its privileges as long as members paid the fiscus Judaicus.
The opening verse of Acts 6 points to the problematic cultural divisions between Hellenized Jews and Aramaic-speaking Israelites in Jerusalem, a disunion that reverberated within the emerging Christian community itself:

it speaks of "Hellenists" and "Hebrews." The existence of these two distinct groups characterizes the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. The Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek. They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem. To identify them, Luke uses the term Hellenistai. When he had in mind Greeks, gentiles, non-Jews who spoke Greek and lived according to the Greek fashion, then he used the word Hellenes (Acts 21.28). As the very context of Acts 6 makes clear, the Hellenistai are not Hellenes.[15]
Some historians believe that a sizeable proportion of the Hellenized Jewish communities of Southern Turkey (Antioch, Alexandretta and neighboring cities) and Syria/Lebanon converted progressively to the Greco-Roman branch of Christianity that eventually constituted the “Melkite” (or "Imperial") Hellenistic churches of the MENA area:

As Jewish Christianity originated at Jerusalem, so Gentile Christianity started at Antioch, then the leading center of the Hellenistic East, with Peter and Paul as its apostles. From Antioch it spread to the various cities and provinces of Syria, among the Hellenistic Syrians as well as among the Hellenistic Jews who, as a result of the great rebellions against the Romans in A.D. 70 and 130, were driven out from Jerusalem and Palestine into Syria.[16]
Cultural legacy[edit]
Widespread influence beyond Second Temple Judaism[edit]
Both Early Christianity and Early Rabbinical Judaism were far less 'orthodox' and less theologically homogeneous than they are today; and both were significantly influenced by Hellenistic religion and borrowed allegories and concepts from Classical Hellenistic philosophy and the works of Greek-speaking Jewish authors of the end of the Second Temple period before the two schools of thought eventually affirmed their respective 'norms' and doctrines, notably by diverging increasingly on key issues such as the status of 'purity laws', the validity of Judeo-Christian messianic beliefs, and, more importantly, the use of Koiné Greek and Latin as liturgical languages replacing Biblical Hebrew[17]...etc.
First synagogues in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East[edit]
The word synagogue itself comes from Jewish Koiné Greek, a language spoken by Hellenized Jews across Southeastern Europe (Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Greece), North Africa and the Middle East after the 3rd century BCE. Many synagogues were built by the Hellenistai or adherents of Hellenistic Judaism in the Greek Isles, Cilicia, Northwestern and Eastern Syria and Northern Israel as early as the first century BCE- notably in Delos, Antioch, Alexandretta, Galilee and Dura-Europos: because of the mosaics and frescos representing heroic figures and Biblical characters (viewed as potentially conductive of "image worship" by later generations of Jewish scholars and rabbis), many of these early synagogues were at first mistaken for heathen Greek temples or Antiochian Greek Orthodox Churches.
Influence on Levantine Byzantine traditions[edit]
The unique combination of ethnocultural traits inhered from the fusion of a Greek-Macedonian cultural base, Hellenistic Judaism and Roman civilization gave birth to the distinctly Antiochian “Middle Eastern-Roman” Christian traditions of Cilicia (Southeastern Turkey) and Syria/Lebanon:

"The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church".[18]
Some typically Grecian "Ancient Synagogal" priestly rites and hymns have survived partially to the present, notably in the distinct church services of the followers of the Melkite Greek Catholic church and its sister-church the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in the Hatay Province of Southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Northern Israel, and in the Greek-Levantine Christian diasporas of Brazil, Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Members of these communities still call themselves "Rûm", literally "Roman" and referring to Asian-Greeks in Turkish, Persian and Levantine Arabic. In that context, the term Rûm is preferred over Yāvāni or Ionani, literally "Ionian" and referring to European-Greeks in Ancient Hebrew, Sanskrit and Classical Arabic.
Notable Hellenized Jews[edit]
Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period[edit]
Andronicus ben Meshullam or Andronikos ben Messullam, Egyptian Jewish scholar of the 2nd century BCE. One of the first known advocates of early Pharisaic (proto-Rabbinical) 'orthodoxy' against the Samaritans.
Antigonus of Sokho (Hebrew: אנטיגנוס איש סוכו‎) also known as Antigonos of Socho was the first scholar of whom Pharisee (proto-Rabbinical) tradition has preserved not only the name but also an important theological doctrine. He flourished about the first half of the third century BCE. According to the Mishnah, he was the disciple and successor of Simon the Just (Hebrew: שמעון הצדיק‎). Antigonus is also the first noted Jew to have a Greek name, a fact commonly discussed by scholars regarding the extent of Hellenic influence on Judaism following the conquest of Judaea by Alexander the Great.
Antigonus II Mattathias (Hebrew: מתתיהו אנטיגונוס השני‎) (known in Hebrew as Matityahu) (died 37 BCE) was the last Hasmonean king of Judea. Antigonus was executed in 37 BCE, after a reign of three years during which he led the national struggle of the Jews for independence from the Romans.
Alexander of Judaea (Gr. Ἀλέξανδρος, died 48 or 47 BC), or Alexander Maccabeus, was the eldest son of Aristobulus II, king of Judaea[19]
Jason of the Oniad family, High Priest in the Temple in Jerusalem from 175 to 172 BCE
Titus Flavius Josephus, first Jewish historian
Menelaus, High Priest in Jerusalem from 171 BC to about 161 BC
Mariamne I (Greek: Τιμόθεος; Μαριάμη (Mariame)), Jewish princess of the Hasmonean dynasty (died 29 BCE) was the second wife of Herod the Great.
Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira also known in Greek as Yesu'a son of Sirach, leading 2nd century BCE Jewish scholar and theologian who lived in Jerusalem and Alexandria, author of the Wisdom of Sirach, or "Book of Ecclesiasticus", which later had a profound influence on both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Christian theology, and, to a lesser extent, also on early Rabbinical Judaism (but Sira was later excluded from the mainstream Jewish canon, and was never part of the Protestant canon or Islamic scriptures)
Herodian and Roman Period[edit]
Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων, Philōn; c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE), also called Philo Judaeus, of Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt, first Jewish philosopher
Saul of Tarsus or Sha'ul Tarsi known as Saint Paul, Cilician-Syrian Jew, cofounder of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Andrew the Apostle (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; from the early 1st century – mid to late 1st century AD), Galileean-Hauranian Jew, called in the Greek Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos (Πρωτόκλητος), or the First-called, believed to have preached in Southeastern Europe (Thrace, Macedonia, Northern Greece) as well as possibly in Southern Russia (Scythia). Patron saint of Ukraine and Scotland
Julianos (Hellenized form of a Roman name) and Pappos (from Koine Greek pappa or papas "patriarch" or "elder") born circa 80 AD in the city of Lod (Hebrew: לוֹד; Greco-Latin: Lydda, Diospolis, Ancient Greek: Λύδδα / Διόσπολις – city of Zeus), one of the main centers of Hellenistic culture in central Israel. Julianos and Pappos led the Jewish resistance movement against the Roman army in Israel during the Kitos War, 115-117 AD (their Hebrew names were Shamayah and Ahiyah respectively)
Rabbi Tarfon (Hebrew: רבי טרפון‎, from the Greek Τρύφων Tryphon), a Kohen,[20] was a member of the third generation of the Mishnah sages, who lived in the period between the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) and the fall of Betar (135 CE). Thought to be originally from the region of Lod (Hebrew: לוֹד; Greco-Latin: Lydda, Diospolis, Ancient Greek: Λύδδα / Διόσπολις – city of Zeus), one of the main centers of Hellenistic culture in central Israel, R. Tarfon was one of the most vociferous Jewish critics of Early Christianity
Simon of Cyrene (שמעון "Hearkening; listening", Standard Hebrew Šimʿon, Tiberian Hebrew Šimʿôn), Libyan Jew born at the end of the 1st C. BC; lived in Jerusalem around 30 AD. Believed to have been "forced [by Roman soldiers] to bear the cross of Jesus after the crucifixtion". His home town, Cyrene, in Northeastern Libya, was a Greek colony, with a large Jewish community where 100,000 Judean Jews had been deported and forced to settle during the reign of Ptolemy Soter (323–285 BC), the Greco-Macedonian ruler of Egypt, following his invasion of Israel.
Saint Timothy (Greek: Τιμόθεος; Timótheos, meaning "honouring God" or "honored by God") born in Lycaonia (Southeastern Turkey) of Greek father and Hellenized Jewish mother, seconded Paul in his missions to Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe (Thrace, Macedonia, Greece)
Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Era[edit]
Rav Pappa (Hebrew: רב פפא, from Koine Greek pappa or papas "patriarch" or "elder" - originally "father") (ca. 300 - died 375) was a Jewish Talmudist who lived in Babylonia, at a time when Judeo-Aramaic culture was regaining the upper hand against classical Hellenistic Judaism, notably amongst Jewish communities in Babylonia which reverted back progressively to the pre-Hellenistic Aramaic culture
Kalonymos family (Kαλώνυμος in Greek), first known rabbinical dynasty of Northern Italy and Central Europe: notable members include Ithiel I, author of Jewish prayer books (born circa 780 CE) and Kalonymus Ben Meshullam born in France circa 1000, spiritual leader of the Jewish community of Mainz in Western Germany
See also[edit]
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
History of Judaism
History of the Jews in the Roman Empire
Jewish Christianity
List of events in early Christianity
Origins of Christianity
Paul the Apostle and Judaism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Roy M. MacLeod, The Library Of Alexandria: Centre Of Learning In The Ancient World
2.^ Jump up to: a b Ulrich Wilcken, Griechische Geschichte im Rahmen der Alterumsgeschichte.
3.Jump up ^ Syracuse University. "The Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic Period"
4.Jump up ^ Harald Hegermann (2008) The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age. In: The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 2. Eds.: Davies and Finkelstein.PP. 115 - 166
5.Jump up ^ "Hellenism", Jewish Encyclopedia, Quote: "Post-exilic Judaism was largely recruited from those returned exiles who regarded it as their chief task to preserve their religion uncontaminated, a task that required the strict separation of the congregation both from all foreign peoples (Ezra x. 11; Neh. ix. 2) and from the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine who did not strictly observe the Law (Ezra vi. 22; Neh. x. 29). "
6.Jump up ^ "Saul of Tarsus: Not a Hebrew Scholar; a Hellenist", Jewish Encyclopedia
7.Jump up ^ E. g., Leviticus 26:41, Ezekiel 44:7
8.Jump up ^ "Hellenism", Jewish Encyclopedia, Quote: from ‘Range of Hellenic Influence’ and ‘Reaction Against Hellenic Influence’ sections
9.Jump up ^ " Epistle to the Cyrene", International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ " Epistle to the Galatians", New Testament
11.Jump up ^ Acts 16:1-3
12.Jump up ^ McGarvey on Acts 16: "Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this 'on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters. '"
13.Jump up ^ 1 Corinthians 7:18
14.Jump up ^ "making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18;, Tosef.; Talmud tractes Shabbat xv. 9; Yevamot 72a, b; Yerushalmi Peah i. 16b; Yevamot viii. 9a; [1]; Catholic Encyclopedia: Circumcision: "To this epispastic operation performed on the athletes to conceal the marks of circumcision St. Paul alludes, me epispastho (1 Corinthians 7:18)."
15.Jump up ^ " Conflict and Diversity in the Earliest Christian Community", Fr. V. Kesich, O.C.A.
16.Jump up ^ "History of Christianity in Syria", Catholic Encyclopedia
17.Jump up ^ Daniel Boyarin. "Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism" [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999, p. 15.
18.Jump up ^ "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186 (p. 125 of 612 in online .pdf file.
19.Jump up ^ Alexander II of Judea at the Jewish Encyclopedia
20.Jump up ^ Talmud Bavli, Kiddushin, 71a
Further reading[edit]
Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch römischer Zeit, hrsg. von W.G. Kümmel und H. Lichtenberger, Gütersloh 1973ff.
Gerhard Delling: Die Begegnung zwischen Hellenismus und Judentum, in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Bd. II 20.1 (1987).


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hanukkah


Traditions


Symbols
Menorah (Hanukiah) ·
 Dreidel (Sevivon) ·
 Gelt ·
 Public menorah
 

Foods
Latkes (Levivot) ·
 Sufganiyah ·
 Buñuelos
 

Music
"Ma'oz Tzur (Rock of Ages)" ·
 "Dreidel Song" ·
 "Oh Chanukah"
 

Other
Chrismukkah ·
 Thanksgivukkah
 

Hanukkah


Maccabean Revolt


Events
Seleucid Empire ·
 Temple in Jerusalem ·
 Maccabees ·
 Hasmonean Kingdom
 

Historical accounts
1 Maccabees ·
 2 Maccabees ·
 Miracle of the cruse of oil
 

People
Mattathias ·
 Simeon ·
 Eleazar ·
 Jonathan ·
 Judah ·
 Antiochus IV Epiphanes ·
 List of Judean rulers
 

Battles
Wadi Haramia ·
 Beth Horon ·
 Emmaus ·
 Beth Zur ·
 Beth Zechariah ·
 Adasa ·
 Dathema ·
 Elasa
 


  


Categories: Hellenistic Judaism






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Български
Deutsch
Eesti
فارسی
Français
עברית
Norsk bokmål
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Edit links
This page was last modified on 25 April 2015, at 02:01.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism









Hellenistic Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of a series on
Jews and Judaism
Star of David
Etymology ·
 Who is a Jew?
 Jewish peoplehood ·
 Jewish identity
 

Religion[show]






















Texts[show]
























Communities[show]






















Population[show]
































































































Denominations[show]















Culture[show]













Languages[show]













History[show]









































Politics[show]












Category Category
Portal icon Judaism portal
WikiProject WikiProject

v ·
 t ·
 e
   
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the fall of the Roman Empire and the Muslim conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria (Egypt) and Antioch (Northern Syria—now Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both founded at the end of the 4th century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).
The major literary product of the contact of Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koiné Greek, specifically, Jewish Koiné Greek.
The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century CE, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its universalist tradition.


Contents  [hide]
1 Hellenism
2 Hasmonean civil war
3 Influence
4 ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek’
5 Decline of the Hellenistai and partial conversion to Christianity
6 Cultural legacy 6.1 Widespread influence beyond Second Temple Judaism
6.2 First synagogues in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East
6.3 Influence on Levantine Byzantine traditions
7 Notable Hellenized Jews 7.1 Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period
7.2 Herodian and Roman Period
7.3 Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Era
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading

Hellenism[edit]



 Map of Alexander's empire, extending east and south of Macedonia.
The conquests of Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BCE spread Greek culture and colonization—a process of cultural change called Hellenization—over non-Greek lands, including the Levant. This gave rise to the Hellenistic age, which sought to create a common or universal culture in the Alexandrian empire based on that of 5th- and 4th-century BCE Athens (see also Age of Pericles), along with a fusion of Near Eastern cultures.[1] The period is characterized by a new wave of Greek colonization which established Greek cities and Kingdoms in Asia and Africa,[2] the most famous being Alexandria in Egypt. New cities were established composed of colonists who came from different parts of the Greek world, and not from a specific metropolis ("mother city") as before.[2]
These Jews living in countries west of the Levant formed the Hellenistic diaspora. The Egyptian diaspora is the most well-known of these.[3] It witnessed close ties, indeed the firm economic integration, of Judea with the Ptolemaic kingdom ruled from Alexandria, and the friendly relations which existed between the royal court and the leaders of the Jewish community. This was a diaspora of choice not of imposition. Information is less robust regarding diasporas in other territories. It suggests that the situation was by and large the same as it was in Egypt.[4]
Jewish life in both Judea and the diaspora was influenced by the culture and language of Hellenism, and in Judea relations deteriorated between Hellenized Jews and traditionalists.
For reasons not fully understood, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes banned key Jewish religious rites and traditions in Judea, causing traditionalists to revolt against the Greek ruler. Out of this revolt was formed an independent Jewish kingdom known as the Hasmonaean Dynasty, which lasted from 165 BCE to 63 BCE. The Hasmonean Dynasty eventually disintegrated in a civil war, which coincided with civil wars in Rome:
Hasmonean civil war[edit]
The Hasmonean civil war began when a younger brother, Aristobulus II, who supported the Sadducee Jews, rebelled in 67 BCE against his elder brother, Hyrcanus II, who supported the Pharisee Jews (their mother, Salome Alexandra, supported the Pharisees, but their father who died before Salome, Alexander Jannaeus, supported the Sadducees). Seizing this opportunity, a third faction of Jews, primarily Idumeans centered in Maresha, and later led by Antipater and his son Herod, sought to re-install the elder brother Hyrcanus II; according to Josephus, Antipater aimed at controlling Judea by putting the weak Hyrcanus back onto the throne. Antigonus, the nephew of Hyrcanus II, and son of Aristobulus II, met with Julius Caesar to say that his uncle Hyrcanus was a puppet in the hands of Pompey and Antipater, and asked The Cæsar's permission to overthrow Antipater in 47 BCE, whilst the civil war and later conspiracy against Julius Cæsar was after Pompey's civil war had ended, but the assassination plot against Julius having only just begun. After Julius ignored this warning by Antigonus—only to be famously assassinated by Pompey's allies, the optimates, three years later—Antigonus enlisted the aid of Parthians (who were already at war with Rome, and wanted to keep this competing empire, Rome, from gaining more land near the Parthians' own power-base) in 42 BCE, and with the Parthians, Antigonus was able to defeat Herod (the same year, back in Rome, Pompey's side began temporarily losing, again, to Cæsar's proteges), but Antigonus ruled Judea for only 3 years until Roman Legions aided Herod, as the Roman Civil Wars came to an end and Rome solidified the new eastern extents of their empire.
The last Hasmonean ruler, Antigonus II Mattathias, was captured by Herod and executed in 37 BCE.
The main issue which separated the Hellenized Jews from rebellious and traditional Jews was the application of biblical laws in a Hellenistic (or Roman or other non-Jewish) empire.[5]
Influence[edit]
The major literary product of the contact of Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint, as well as the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, etc.) dating to the period. Important sources are Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Some scholars[6] consider Paul of Tarsus to be a Hellenist as well, even though he himself claimed to be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6).
Philo of Alexandria was an important apologist of Judaism, presenting it as a tradition of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo could draw on Jewish tradition to use customs which Greeks thought as primitive or exotic as the basis for metaphors: such as "circumcision of the heart" in the pursuit of virtue.[7] Consequently, Hellenistic Judaism emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) as emanations from God.
Beyond Tarsus, Alexandretta, Antioch and Northwestern Syria (the main "Cilician and Asiatic" centers of Hellenistic Judaism in the Levant), the second half of the Second Temple period witnessed an acceleration of Hellenization in Israel itself, with Jewish high priests and aristocrats alike adopting Greek names:

‘Ḥoni’ became ‘Menelaus’; ‘Joshua’ became ‘Jason’ or ‘Jesus.’ The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people [...] The inscription forbidding strangers to advance beyond a certain point in the Temple was in Greek; and was probably made necessary by the presence of numerous Jews from Greek-speaking countries at the time of the festivals (comp. the "murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews," Acts vi. 1). The coffers in the Temple which contained the shekel contributions were marked with Greek letters (Sheḳ. iii. 2). It is therefore no wonder that there were synagogues of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics in the Holy City itself (Acts vi. 9).[8]
‘There is neither Jew nor Greek’[edit]
Inherent ethno-cultural and social tensions within the Hellenistic Jewish world were partially surmounted by the progressive emergence of a new, typically Antiochian Middle-Eastern Greek doctrine (doxa) spearheaded by Paul the Apostle (himself a Hellenized Cilician Jew) and his followers, be they -
1.established, autochthonous Hellenized Cilician-Western Syrian Jews (themselves descendants of Babylonian Jewish migrants who had adopted early on various elements of Greek culture and civilization while retaining a generally conservative, strict attachment to Halakha),
2.heathen, 'Classical’ Greeks, Greco-Macedonian and Greco-Syrian gentiles, or
3.the local, autochthonous descendants of Greek or Greco-Syrian converts to mainstream Judaism – known as proselytes (Greek: προσήλυτος/proselytes) and Greek-speaking Jews born of mixed marriages.
Paul’s efforts were probably facilitated by the arrival of a fourth wave of Greek-speaking newcomers to Cilicia/Southern Turkey and Northwestern Syria: Cypriot Jews and ‘Cyrenian’ (Libyan) Jewish migrants of non-Egyptian North African Jewish origin, as well as gentile Roman settlers from Italy- many of whom already spoke fluent Koine Greek and/or sent their children to Greek schools. Some scholars believe that, at the time, these Cypriot and Cyrenian North African Jewish migrants were generally less affluent than the autochthonous Cilician-Syrian Jews and practiced a more ‘liberal’ form of Judaism, more propitious for the formation of a new canon:
[North African] Cyrenian Jews were of sufficient importance in those days to have their name associated with a synagogue at Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). And when the persecution arose about Stephen [a Hellenized Syrian-Cilician Jew], some of these Jews of Cyrene who had been converted at Jerusalem, were scattered abroad and came with others to Antioch and [initially] preached the word "unto the Jews only" (Acts 11:19, 20 the King James Version), and one of them, Lucius, became a prophet in the early church there [the nascent Greek ‘Orthodox’ community of Antioch].[9]
These subtle, progressive socio-cultural shifts are somehow summarized succinctly in Chapter 3 of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians:
There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female... (Galatians 3:28).[10]
Decline of the Hellenistai and partial conversion to Christianity[edit]



 Moses. Fresco from Dura Europos synagogue
The reasons for the decline of Hellenistic Judaism are obscure. It may be that it was marginalized by, absorbed into, or became Early Christianity (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews). The Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles report that, after his initial focus on the conversion of Hellenized Jews across Anatolia, Macedonia, Thrace and Northern Syria without criticizing their laws and traditions,[11][12] Paul of Tarsus eventually preferred to evangelize communities of Greek and Macedonian proselytes and Godfearers, or Greek circles sympathetic to Judaism: the Apostolic Decree allowing converts to forego circumcision made Christianity a more attractive option for interested pagans than Rabbinic Judaism, which required ritual circumcision for converts (see Brit milah). See also Circumcision controversy in early Christianity[13][14] and the Abrogation of Old Covenant laws.
The attractiveness of Christianity may, however, have suffered a setback with its being explicitly outlawed in the 80s CE by Domitian as a "Jewish superstition", while Judaism retained its privileges as long as members paid the fiscus Judaicus.
The opening verse of Acts 6 points to the problematic cultural divisions between Hellenized Jews and Aramaic-speaking Israelites in Jerusalem, a disunion that reverberated within the emerging Christian community itself:

it speaks of "Hellenists" and "Hebrews." The existence of these two distinct groups characterizes the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. The Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek. They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem. To identify them, Luke uses the term Hellenistai. When he had in mind Greeks, gentiles, non-Jews who spoke Greek and lived according to the Greek fashion, then he used the word Hellenes (Acts 21.28). As the very context of Acts 6 makes clear, the Hellenistai are not Hellenes.[15]
Some historians believe that a sizeable proportion of the Hellenized Jewish communities of Southern Turkey (Antioch, Alexandretta and neighboring cities) and Syria/Lebanon converted progressively to the Greco-Roman branch of Christianity that eventually constituted the “Melkite” (or "Imperial") Hellenistic churches of the MENA area:

As Jewish Christianity originated at Jerusalem, so Gentile Christianity started at Antioch, then the leading center of the Hellenistic East, with Peter and Paul as its apostles. From Antioch it spread to the various cities and provinces of Syria, among the Hellenistic Syrians as well as among the Hellenistic Jews who, as a result of the great rebellions against the Romans in A.D. 70 and 130, were driven out from Jerusalem and Palestine into Syria.[16]
Cultural legacy[edit]
Widespread influence beyond Second Temple Judaism[edit]
Both Early Christianity and Early Rabbinical Judaism were far less 'orthodox' and less theologically homogeneous than they are today; and both were significantly influenced by Hellenistic religion and borrowed allegories and concepts from Classical Hellenistic philosophy and the works of Greek-speaking Jewish authors of the end of the Second Temple period before the two schools of thought eventually affirmed their respective 'norms' and doctrines, notably by diverging increasingly on key issues such as the status of 'purity laws', the validity of Judeo-Christian messianic beliefs, and, more importantly, the use of Koiné Greek and Latin as liturgical languages replacing Biblical Hebrew[17]...etc.
First synagogues in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East[edit]
The word synagogue itself comes from Jewish Koiné Greek, a language spoken by Hellenized Jews across Southeastern Europe (Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Greece), North Africa and the Middle East after the 3rd century BCE. Many synagogues were built by the Hellenistai or adherents of Hellenistic Judaism in the Greek Isles, Cilicia, Northwestern and Eastern Syria and Northern Israel as early as the first century BCE- notably in Delos, Antioch, Alexandretta, Galilee and Dura-Europos: because of the mosaics and frescos representing heroic figures and Biblical characters (viewed as potentially conductive of "image worship" by later generations of Jewish scholars and rabbis), many of these early synagogues were at first mistaken for heathen Greek temples or Antiochian Greek Orthodox Churches.
Influence on Levantine Byzantine traditions[edit]
The unique combination of ethnocultural traits inhered from the fusion of a Greek-Macedonian cultural base, Hellenistic Judaism and Roman civilization gave birth to the distinctly Antiochian “Middle Eastern-Roman” Christian traditions of Cilicia (Southeastern Turkey) and Syria/Lebanon:

"The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church".[18]
Some typically Grecian "Ancient Synagogal" priestly rites and hymns have survived partially to the present, notably in the distinct church services of the followers of the Melkite Greek Catholic church and its sister-church the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch in the Hatay Province of Southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Northern Israel, and in the Greek-Levantine Christian diasporas of Brazil, Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Members of these communities still call themselves "Rûm", literally "Roman" and referring to Asian-Greeks in Turkish, Persian and Levantine Arabic. In that context, the term Rûm is preferred over Yāvāni or Ionani, literally "Ionian" and referring to European-Greeks in Ancient Hebrew, Sanskrit and Classical Arabic.
Notable Hellenized Jews[edit]
Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period[edit]
Andronicus ben Meshullam or Andronikos ben Messullam, Egyptian Jewish scholar of the 2nd century BCE. One of the first known advocates of early Pharisaic (proto-Rabbinical) 'orthodoxy' against the Samaritans.
Antigonus of Sokho (Hebrew: אנטיגנוס איש סוכו‎) also known as Antigonos of Socho was the first scholar of whom Pharisee (proto-Rabbinical) tradition has preserved not only the name but also an important theological doctrine. He flourished about the first half of the third century BCE. According to the Mishnah, he was the disciple and successor of Simon the Just (Hebrew: שמעון הצדיק‎). Antigonus is also the first noted Jew to have a Greek name, a fact commonly discussed by scholars regarding the extent of Hellenic influence on Judaism following the conquest of Judaea by Alexander the Great.
Antigonus II Mattathias (Hebrew: מתתיהו אנטיגונוס השני‎) (known in Hebrew as Matityahu) (died 37 BCE) was the last Hasmonean king of Judea. Antigonus was executed in 37 BCE, after a reign of three years during which he led the national struggle of the Jews for independence from the Romans.
Alexander of Judaea (Gr. Ἀλέξανδρος, died 48 or 47 BC), or Alexander Maccabeus, was the eldest son of Aristobulus II, king of Judaea[19]
Jason of the Oniad family, High Priest in the Temple in Jerusalem from 175 to 172 BCE
Titus Flavius Josephus, first Jewish historian
Menelaus, High Priest in Jerusalem from 171 BC to about 161 BC
Mariamne I (Greek: Τιμόθεος; Μαριάμη (Mariame)), Jewish princess of the Hasmonean dynasty (died 29 BCE) was the second wife of Herod the Great.
Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira also known in Greek as Yesu'a son of Sirach, leading 2nd century BCE Jewish scholar and theologian who lived in Jerusalem and Alexandria, author of the Wisdom of Sirach, or "Book of Ecclesiasticus", which later had a profound influence on both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Christian theology, and, to a lesser extent, also on early Rabbinical Judaism (but Sira was later excluded from the mainstream Jewish canon, and was never part of the Protestant canon or Islamic scriptures)
Herodian and Roman Period[edit]
Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων, Philōn; c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE), also called Philo Judaeus, of Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt, first Jewish philosopher
Saul of Tarsus or Sha'ul Tarsi known as Saint Paul, Cilician-Syrian Jew, cofounder of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Andrew the Apostle (Greek: Ἀνδρέας, Andreas; from the early 1st century – mid to late 1st century AD), Galileean-Hauranian Jew, called in the Greek Orthodox tradition Prōtoklētos (Πρωτόκλητος), or the First-called, believed to have preached in Southeastern Europe (Thrace, Macedonia, Northern Greece) as well as possibly in Southern Russia (Scythia). Patron saint of Ukraine and Scotland
Julianos (Hellenized form of a Roman name) and Pappos (from Koine Greek pappa or papas "patriarch" or "elder") born circa 80 AD in the city of Lod (Hebrew: לוֹד; Greco-Latin: Lydda, Diospolis, Ancient Greek: Λύδδα / Διόσπολις – city of Zeus), one of the main centers of Hellenistic culture in central Israel. Julianos and Pappos led the Jewish resistance movement against the Roman army in Israel during the Kitos War, 115-117 AD (their Hebrew names were Shamayah and Ahiyah respectively)
Rabbi Tarfon (Hebrew: רבי טרפון‎, from the Greek Τρύφων Tryphon), a Kohen,[20] was a member of the third generation of the Mishnah sages, who lived in the period between the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) and the fall of Betar (135 CE). Thought to be originally from the region of Lod (Hebrew: לוֹד; Greco-Latin: Lydda, Diospolis, Ancient Greek: Λύδδα / Διόσπολις – city of Zeus), one of the main centers of Hellenistic culture in central Israel, R. Tarfon was one of the most vociferous Jewish critics of Early Christianity
Simon of Cyrene (שמעון "Hearkening; listening", Standard Hebrew Šimʿon, Tiberian Hebrew Šimʿôn), Libyan Jew born at the end of the 1st C. BC; lived in Jerusalem around 30 AD. Believed to have been "forced [by Roman soldiers] to bear the cross of Jesus after the crucifixtion". His home town, Cyrene, in Northeastern Libya, was a Greek colony, with a large Jewish community where 100,000 Judean Jews had been deported and forced to settle during the reign of Ptolemy Soter (323–285 BC), the Greco-Macedonian ruler of Egypt, following his invasion of Israel.
Saint Timothy (Greek: Τιμόθεος; Timótheos, meaning "honouring God" or "honored by God") born in Lycaonia (Southeastern Turkey) of Greek father and Hellenized Jewish mother, seconded Paul in his missions to Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe (Thrace, Macedonia, Greece)
Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Era[edit]
Rav Pappa (Hebrew: רב פפא, from Koine Greek pappa or papas "patriarch" or "elder" - originally "father") (ca. 300 - died 375) was a Jewish Talmudist who lived in Babylonia, at a time when Judeo-Aramaic culture was regaining the upper hand against classical Hellenistic Judaism, notably amongst Jewish communities in Babylonia which reverted back progressively to the pre-Hellenistic Aramaic culture
Kalonymos family (Kαλώνυμος in Greek), first known rabbinical dynasty of Northern Italy and Central Europe: notable members include Ithiel I, author of Jewish prayer books (born circa 780 CE) and Kalonymus Ben Meshullam born in France circa 1000, spiritual leader of the Jewish community of Mainz in Western Germany
See also[edit]
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
History of Judaism
History of the Jews in the Roman Empire
Jewish Christianity
List of events in early Christianity
Origins of Christianity
Paul the Apostle and Judaism
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Roy M. MacLeod, The Library Of Alexandria: Centre Of Learning In The Ancient World
2.^ Jump up to: a b Ulrich Wilcken, Griechische Geschichte im Rahmen der Alterumsgeschichte.
3.Jump up ^ Syracuse University. "The Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic Period"
4.Jump up ^ Harald Hegermann (2008) The Diaspora in the Hellenistic Age. In: The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 2. Eds.: Davies and Finkelstein.PP. 115 - 166
5.Jump up ^ "Hellenism", Jewish Encyclopedia, Quote: "Post-exilic Judaism was largely recruited from those returned exiles who regarded it as their chief task to preserve their religion uncontaminated, a task that required the strict separation of the congregation both from all foreign peoples (Ezra x. 11; Neh. ix. 2) and from the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine who did not strictly observe the Law (Ezra vi. 22; Neh. x. 29). "
6.Jump up ^ "Saul of Tarsus: Not a Hebrew Scholar; a Hellenist", Jewish Encyclopedia
7.Jump up ^ E. g., Leviticus 26:41, Ezekiel 44:7
8.Jump up ^ "Hellenism", Jewish Encyclopedia, Quote: from ‘Range of Hellenic Influence’ and ‘Reaction Against Hellenic Influence’ sections
9.Jump up ^ " Epistle to the Cyrene", International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
10.Jump up ^ " Epistle to the Galatians", New Testament
11.Jump up ^ Acts 16:1-3
12.Jump up ^ McGarvey on Acts 16: "Yet we see him in the case before us, circumcising Timothy with his own hand, and this 'on account of certain Jews who were in those quarters. '"
13.Jump up ^ 1 Corinthians 7:18
14.Jump up ^ "making themselves foreskins"; I Macc. i. 15; Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; Assumptio Mosis, viii.; I Cor. vii. 18;, Tosef.; Talmud tractes Shabbat xv. 9; Yevamot 72a, b; Yerushalmi Peah i. 16b; Yevamot viii. 9a; [1]; Catholic Encyclopedia: Circumcision: "To this epispastic operation performed on the athletes to conceal the marks of circumcision St. Paul alludes, me epispastho (1 Corinthians 7:18)."
15.Jump up ^ " Conflict and Diversity in the Earliest Christian Community", Fr. V. Kesich, O.C.A.
16.Jump up ^ "History of Christianity in Syria", Catholic Encyclopedia
17.Jump up ^ Daniel Boyarin. "Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism" [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999, p. 15.
18.Jump up ^ "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186 (p. 125 of 612 in online .pdf file.
19.Jump up ^ Alexander II of Judea at the Jewish Encyclopedia
20.Jump up ^ Talmud Bavli, Kiddushin, 71a
Further reading[edit]
Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch römischer Zeit, hrsg. von W.G. Kümmel und H. Lichtenberger, Gütersloh 1973ff.
Gerhard Delling: Die Begegnung zwischen Hellenismus und Judentum, in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Bd. II 20.1 (1987).


[hide]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Hanukkah


Traditions


Symbols
Menorah (Hanukiah) ·
 Dreidel (Sevivon) ·
 Gelt ·
 Public menorah
 

Foods
Latkes (Levivot) ·
 Sufganiyah ·
 Buñuelos
 

Music
"Ma'oz Tzur (Rock of Ages)" ·
 "Dreidel Song" ·
 "Oh Chanukah"
 

Other
Chrismukkah ·
 Thanksgivukkah
 

Hanukkah


Maccabean Revolt


Events
Seleucid Empire ·
 Temple in Jerusalem ·
 Maccabees ·
 Hasmonean Kingdom
 

Historical accounts
1 Maccabees ·
 2 Maccabees ·
 Miracle of the cruse of oil
 

People
Mattathias ·
 Simeon ·
 Eleazar ·
 Jonathan ·
 Judah ·
 Antiochus IV Epiphanes ·
 List of Judean rulers
 

Battles
Wadi Haramia ·
 Beth Horon ·
 Emmaus ·
 Beth Zur ·
 Beth Zechariah ·
 Adasa ·
 Dathema ·
 Elasa
 


  


Categories: Hellenistic Judaism






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk









Read

Edit

View history

















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
العربية
Български
Deutsch
Eesti
فارسی
Français
עברית
Norsk bokmål
Português
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Edit links
This page was last modified on 25 April 2015, at 02:01.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism