লেখকঃ
পাষ্টর জনসন সরকার।
খ্রীষ্টধর্ম
সমালোচকেরা দাবি করে ত্রিত্ববাদ ৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টব্দের তৈরীকৃত শিক্ষা। যদিও তা সত্য নয় নাইসিন পরিষদে ৮০%
আলোচনা করা হয় ইয়াওয়ে এলোহীম[אֱלֹהִים יהוה] এবং ইয়েশূয়া-হা ম্যাসিয়াঁক [ישוע המשיח.]জাতগত/সত্তার দিক দিয়ে এক এই বিষয়ে। তারা আলোচনা করেছিলেন ইয়াওয়ে এলোহীমের মতন ম্যাসিয়াঁকের কোন
শুরু অথবা শেষ নেইঃ
the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in his
relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten'
by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else
created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning[1]
৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টাব্দে নাইসিয়া পরিষদের পূর্বে কি ত্রিত্ববাদের শিক্ষা ছিল?
অনেকে দাবি করেছেন ৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টাব্দে নাইসিয়া পরিষদের পূর্বে ত্রিত্ববাদের শিক্ষা পাওয়া যায় না (যদিও দাবিটি সত্য নয়) তারা দাবি করেন ৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টাব্দে নাইসিয়া পরিষদের পরে ত্রিত্ববাদ শিক্ষার আবিস্কার হয় এর পূর্বে ত্রিত্ববাদ শিক্ষা সম্পর্কে কেউ কিছু জানতনা।
প্রথমত, পবিত্র বাইবেল দ্বারাই ত্রিত্ববাদের স্পষ্ট প্রমাণ পাওয়া যায় যা ৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টাব্দে নাইসিয়া পরিষদ হওয়া শতশত বছর পূর্বে লেখা হয়েছে।
(যা ইতোমধ্যে আমার
অন্যান্য খ্রীষ্টিয় আত্নিক ভাইয়েরা প্রমান পেশ করেছেন)
দ্বিতীয়ত, ইহুদিদের ধর্ম গ্রন্থে স্পষ্ট ত্রিত্ববাদের শিক্ষার প্রমাণ পাওয়া যায়।
(যা আমি ত্রিত্ববাদ বনাম একত্ববাদ বিতর্কে প্রকাশিত করেছিলাম)
তৃতীয়ত, ৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টাব্দের পূর্বের চার্চ ফাদারদের শিক্ষায় ত্রিত্ববাদের প্রমাণ পাওয়া যায়।
এই আর্টিকেলে আমি
৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টাব্দের পূর্বের চার্চ ফাদারদের শিক্ষায় ত্রিত্ববাদের প্রমাণ পেশ করব যা ভেঙ্গে চুরমার করে দেবে খ্রীষ্ট-বিরোধীদের ভ্রান্ত যুক্তিসমূহকে(হাল্লেলুইয়া)।
তাদের প্রধান যুক্তি হলো ৩২৫ খ্রীষ্টাব্দের পূর্বে খ্রীষ্ট
ধর্মে ত্রিত্ববাদের কোন শিক্ষা পাওয়া যায় না,যিহোবার সাক্ষী নামক ভ্রান্ত দল সবার
প্রথমে এই যুক্তি পেশ করেছিল আর তারপর থেকে অন্যান্য খ্রীষ্ট-বিরোধীরা এই যুক্তি
পেশ করা শুরু করে। সম্প্রতি মুহাম্মদ হিজাব নামক এক মুসলিম প্রচারক ত্রিত্ববাদ
সংক্রন্ত বিতর্কে একই যুক্তি পেশ করেছিলেন যা শতভাগ ভূল। এর পাশাপাশি অনেক
খ্রীষ্ট-বিরোধীরা একি যুক্তি পেশ করে আসছেন, আশা করি এই লেখার প্রকাশ হওয়ার পর
থেকে তাদের এই যুক্তি আর কোন কাজে আসবে না (হাল্লেলুইয়া)।
ফাদার ক্লেমেন্ট অব রোম(Clement of Rome 35 AD-99 AD)
তিনি পিতা,পুত্র,এবং
পবিত্র আত্মা সম্পর্কে বলেছেন স্পষ্ট বলেছেন,
Have we not one God and one Christ? Is not the Spirit of grace, which was poured out upon us, one? Is not our calling one in Christ?[2]- 1 Clement 46:6
The
Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations (Διδαχὴ Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) যা প্রথম শতাব্দিতে লেখা হয়েছিল এই শিক্ষা সরাসরি প্রভু ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ১২জন প্রেরিত হতে প্রাপ্ত)সেখানে
পিতা,পুত্র,এবং পবিত্র আত্মার নামে বাপ্তিষ্মের বিষয়ে স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ রয়েছে,
“But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these
precepts, baptize in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water,”
(Didache 7:1)[3]
Church at Smyrna 110 AD
এই চার্চকে প্রকাশিত বাক্যে বর্নিত ৭টি চার্চের মধ্যে একটি বলে
বিশ্বাস করা হয় তাদের লেখায় স্পষ্ট ত্রিত্ববাদের শিক্ষা পাওয়া যায়,
আন্তখিয়ার বিশপ Ignatius (AD 50-117)
যিনি সুসমাচার লেখক
প্রেরিত যোহনের শিষ্য ছিলেন তিনি, পিতা,পুত্র,এবং পবিত্র আত্মার বিষয়ে স্পষ্ট
উল্লেখ করেছেনঃ
Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit" "Ignatius's Letter to the
Magnesians, Ch. XIII[5]
এছাড়াও তিনি(Ignatius)তার চিঠি গুলোতে স্পষ্ট ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
Ignatius,
who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through
the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages
to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true
passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God;
even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation:
abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.[6]
Being as you
are imitators of God, once you took on new life through
the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to
you.[7]
There is
only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and
from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord[8]
For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary
according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit[9]
Consequently
all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so
characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal
life[10]
For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is
in the Father.[11]
I
glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are
established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the
cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.[12]
Wait
expectantly for the one who is above time: the
Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the
Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake
endured in every way.[13]
তিনি(Ignatius)পবিত্র আত্মার বিষয়ে স্পষ্ট শিক্ষা প্রদান
করেছিলেন,
বিশপ Polycarp (AD 69-155)
যিনি সুসমাচার লেখক শীর্ষ প্রেরিত যোহনের শিষ্য ছিলেন তিনি, ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
Letter
to the Philippians:
Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ,
build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under
heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus
Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead[18]
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)
যিনি বিখ্যাত
শাস্ত্র ব্যাখ্যাকারী ছিলেন তিনি ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and
appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at
the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been
demonstrated fully by what has been said.[19]
Permit me
first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts[20]
Therefore
these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the
Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and
as Christ.[21]
The Father
of the universe has a Son; who also, being the
first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared
in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other
prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become
Man by a virgin[22]
For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.[23]
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202)
যিনি বিশপ
পলিকার্পের কাছ থেকে ধর্ম শিক্ষা লাভ করেছিলেন। বিশপ পলিকার্প সুসমাচার লেখক শীর্ষ
প্রেরিত যোহনের শিষ্য ছিলেন। Irenaeus of Lyons ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
For I have
shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything,
and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God,
and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the
prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have
attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the
Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He
had been a mere man.... He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the
Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge
of all men;—all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.[24]
He received
testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit,
from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and
demons[25]
Christ
Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the
invisible Father.[26]
Christ
Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was
also manifested to the fathers.[27]
Carefully,
then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a
virgin, and His essence, that He is God
(for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man.... [W]e
should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from
the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.[28]
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)
যিনি একজন প্রাচীন
চার্চ ফাদার ছিলেন। তিনি ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
This Word,
then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and
of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of
all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way
to life eternal.... The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as
Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our
Teacher that as God He might afterwards conduct us to
the life which never ends.[29]
For it was
not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a
space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality
adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is
made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son,
and the Word was in God[30]
Clement
of Alexandria পবিত্র আত্মা নিয়েও স্পষ্ট সাক্ষ্য প্রদান
করেছেন,
Thus also we who are baptized, having wiped off the sins which obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the eye of the spirit free, unimpeded, and full of light, by which alone we contemplate the Divine, the Holy Spirit flowing down to us from above.[31]
Tertullian (AD 150-225)
যিনি একজন প্রাচীন
খ্রীষ্ট ধর্মতত্ত্ববিদ ছিলেন।তিনি ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
For God
alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.[32]
Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as
light of light is kindled.... That which has come forth out of God is at once
God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In
this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God,
He is made a second in manner of existence—in
position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the
original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always
foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in
her womb, is in His birth God and man united.[33]
তিনি( Tertullian) পিতা,পুত্র,এবং পবিত্র আত্মা [ত্রিত্ববাদ]
সম্পর্কে বলেছেন স্পষ্ট শিক্ষা দিয়েছেন,
Bear always
in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are
inseparable from each other , and so will you know in what
sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and
the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they
are distinct from each other. This statement is taken in a wrong
sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a
separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am,
moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father
and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs
from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is
different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the
same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their
being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the
Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself
acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority
is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is
distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is
one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who
is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the
thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of
the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but
a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray
the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of
truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say
that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree
in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of
the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they
have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?[34]
As if in
this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery
of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a
Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance,
but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of
one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees
and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[35]
If the
Holy Ghost took upon Himself so great a concern for our instruction, that
we might know from what everything was produced, would He not in like manner
have kept us well informed about both the heaven and the earth, by indicating
to us what it was that He made them of, if their original consisted of any
material substance, so that the more He seemed to have made them of nothing,
the less in fact was there as yet made, from which He could appear to have made
them?[36]
Then there
is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the
Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is
called “another Comforter,” indeed; but in what way He is another we
have already shown, “He shall receive of mine,” says Christ, just as Christ
Himself received of the Father’s. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son,
and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet
distinct One from Another.[38]
Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235)
তিনি বিশপ পলিকার্প
এর শিষ্য ছিলেন বিশপ পলিকার্প সুসমাচার লেখক শীর্ষ প্রেরিত যোহনের শিষ্য ছিলেন। Hippolytus of Rome ছিলেন।তিনি ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
The Logos
alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.[39]
For, lo, the
Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the
Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was
He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just
as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.[40]
For all, the
righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word.[41]
Let us
believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered)
into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and
assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all
that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer
immortality on men who believe on His name.... He now, coming forth into the
world, was manifested as God in a body,
coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by
conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the
conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in
weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a
pillow.[42]
Origen (AD 185-254)
যিনি একজন প্রাচীন খ্রীষ্ট ধর্মতত্ত্ববিদ ছিলেন। তিনি ত্রিত্ববাদ নিয়ে বিস্তারিত লিখেছেন এমনকি তিনি ত্রিত্ববাদ কথাটিও উল্লেখিত করেছেন,
Now, what the Holy Spirit is, we are taught
in many passages of Scripture, as by David in the Psalm 51, when he says, “And
take not Thy Holy Spirit from me;” and by Daniel, where it is said, “The
Holy Spirit which is in thee.” And in the New Testament we have abundant
testimonies, as when the Holy Spirit is described as having descended upon
Christ, and when the Lord breathed upon His apostles after His resurrection,
saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit;” and the saying of the angel to Mary, “The
Holy Spirit will come upon thee;” the declaration by Paul, that no one can call
Jesus Lord, save by the Holy Spirit. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy
Spirit was given by the imposition of the apostles’ hands in baptism. From
all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such
authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the
authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all,
i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the
unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the
Holy Spirit. Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy
Spirit, when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope
for forgiveness; but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
has not forgiveness, either in the present world or in that which is to come!
We are of opinion that this distinction may
be observed in the Old Testament also, as when it is said, “He that giveth His
Spirit to the people who are upon the earth, and Spirit to them who walk
thereon.” For, without doubt, every one who walks upon the earth (i.e., earthly
and corporeal beings) is a partaker also of the Holy Spirit, receiving it from
God. My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which
are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying,
“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the
only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that
expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either
of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,” ought to be
understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father is
obtained by revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit, so that both of
these beings which, according to the prophet, are called either “living things”
or “lives,” exist as the ground of the knowledge of God the Father.
For as it is said of the Son, that “no one
knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him,” the
same also is said by the apostle of the Holy Spirit, when He declares, “God
hath revealed them to us by His Holy Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all
things, even the deep things of God;” and again in the Gospel, when the
Saviour, speaking of the divine and profounder parts of His teaching, which His
disciples were not yet able to receive, thus addresses them: “I have yet
many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; but when the Holy
Spirit, the Comforter, is come, He will teach you all things, and will bring
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” We must
understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals
Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of
God, reveals God to whom He will: “For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth.”
We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through
revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the
Son’s revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge;
but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to
ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else existed before the
Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy
Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not
yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had
received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the
Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of
the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son,
unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as
“always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken
absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words
relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch
of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature
all conception of the finite understanding.
Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what
is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both
with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless
with the co-operation of the entire Trinity;
and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without
the Holy Spirit. And in discussing these subjects, it will undoubtedly be
necessary to describe the special working of the Holy Spirit, and of the
Father and the Son. I am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father
and of the Son takes place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational
beings and in dumb animals; nay, even in those things which are without life,
and in all things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy
Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without life,
or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not found even in
those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged in evil courses, and
not at all converted to a better life. In those persons alone do I think that
the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place, who are already turning to
a better life, and walking along the way which leads to Jesus Christ, i.e., who
are engaged in the performance of good actions, and who abide in God.[43]
As now by participation in the Son of God one
is adopted as a son, and by participating in that wisdom which is in God is
rendered wise, so also by participation in the Holy Spirit is a man rendered
holy and spiritual. For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the
Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature
of the Trinity is one and incorporeal. And
what we have said regarding the participation of the soul is to be understood
of angels and heavenly powers in a similar way as of souls, because every
rational creature needs a participation in the Trinity.[44]
তিনি(Origen) ইয়েশূয়া-হা –ম্যাসিয়াঁকের ঈশ্বরত্বের কথা স্পষ্ট উল্লেখ করেছেন,
Jesus
Christ...in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and
was incarnate although God, and
while made a man remained the God which He was.[45]
Seeing God
the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son,
the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if
the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being
used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then,
of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are
corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the
substance of God was converted into the Son, or that
the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond
His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist....
How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the
Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He
was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God
the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or
even be separated from His essence.[46]
For we who
say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all
things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier
than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground
on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than
I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord
over God. But when we regard the Savior as God the Word,
and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say
that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this
capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is
Ruler over all.[47]
Wherefore we
have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born
indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without
any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any
divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within
itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.[48]
But it is
monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His
only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living
thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is
something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison
at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or
discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how
the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal and
everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by
receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature.[49]
And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent[50]
প্রাচীন চার্চ
ফাদার দের শিক্ষায় স্পষ্ট ত্রিত্ববাদের শিক্ষা পাওয়া যায়, এমন কি ত্রিত্ববাদ
শব্দটিরও উল্লেখ পাওয়া গেছে। ৩২৫খ্রীঃ নাইসিন পরিষদে মোটেই ত্রিত্ববাদ শিক্ষার
আবিস্কার করা হয় নি বরং প্রেরিতদের শিক্ষাকে
স্বীকৃতি দেওয়া হয়েছিল যাদের শিষ্যরাও(Early Church Fathers) একি শিক্ষা প্রদান করেছিলেন। তাই যারা দাবি
করে ৩২৫ সালের পূর্বে ত্রিত্ববাদের শিক্ষার কোন দলিল পাওয়া যায় না তারা প্রকাশ্য
মূর্খ প্রমানিত হয়েছেন।
[1]
Kelly
1978, Chapter 9
[6]
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 0.0. (This
is the Greeting.)
[7]
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 1.1
[8]
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2
[9]
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 18.2.
[10]
Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19.3
[11]
Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 3.3. Holmes, AF, 229
[12]
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 1.1.
Holmes, AF, 249.
[13]
Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp, 3.2. Holmes, AF, 265
[14]
The Epistle of Ignatius to the
Ephesians Chapter IX
[15] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Chapter VI
[16]
The Epistle of Ignatius to the
Philadelphians Chapter IV.—Have but one Eucharist, etc.
[17] The Epistle of Ignatius to the
PhiladelphiansChapter V.—Pray for me.
[18] Polycarp, Philippians, 12:2.
[19]
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128.
Translation from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, I:264
[20]
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 36. ANF, I:212
[21]
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 63. ANF, I:229
[22]
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63. ANF, I:184.
[23]
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 126. ANF,
I:263.
[24]
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.19.2
[25]
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7
[26]
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1.
[27]
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2.
[28]
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4.
[29]
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen,
1.
[30]
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen,
10.
[31]
The Instructor – Chapter VI
[32]
Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 41.
[33]
Tertullian, Apology, 21.
[34]
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 9.
[35]
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 2.
[36]
Against Hermogenes. Chapter XXII.—This
Conclusion Confirmed by the Usage of Holy Scripture in Its History of the
Creation. Hermogenes in Danger of the Woe Pronounced Against Adding to
Scripture.
[37]
Against Praxeas Chapter XIII
[38]
Against Praxeas Chapter XXV
[39]
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29
[40]
Hippolytus, Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On
Luke, Chapter 23.
[41]
Hippolytus, Against Plato, Section 3.
[42]
Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Section 17.
[43]
Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter III – On
the Holy Spirit Section 4 and 5
[44]
Origen De Principiis. Book IV Chapter
I.32
[45]
Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4.
[46] Origen. Contra Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 11.
[47] Origen, Contra Celsus Book 8, Chapter 15.
[48] Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.
[49] Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4.
[50] Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 10.
0 coment rios: