True Church Fathers Photinus

Photinus (Greek Φωτεινός; died 376),^[1] was a Christian heresiarch and bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia Secunda (today the town Sremska Mitrovica in Serbia), best known for denying the incarnation of Christ. His name became synonymous in later literature for someone asserting that Christ was not God. His teachings are mentioned by various ancient authors, like Ambrosiaster (Pseudo- Ambrose), saint Hilary of Poitiers, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, saint Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, John Cassian, Sulpicius Severus, Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hyeronymus), Vigilius of Thapsus (Vigillius Tapsensis) and many others.

None of his writings are extant and must be reconstructed through his critics

At the time Photinus voiced his own theological system, according to which Jesus was not divine and the Logos did not exist before the conception of Jesus. For Photinus the Logos was simply a mode of manifestation of the Father, hence he denied the pre-existence of Christ and saw theophanies in the Old Testament as of the father, and the image of the "Son of God" (actually, Son of man) in front of (and distinct from) the Ancient of Days as prediction only. As a matter of fact, Photinus' apprehension of God as Father, and his teachings about the nature of Jesus Christ are maybe more complex than has been thought.

The church historian Socrates Scholasticus identifies Photinus' beliefs with those of Sabellius, Paul of Samosata.^[ This also was presumably misapprehension of Photinus' doctrine about Jesus.Ambrose, among the many accusing Photinus of reducing Christ to a man adopted by God, notes that his favourite verses were 1 Timothy 2:5 and John 8:40. In the controversies against Polish Socinian influence in 18th-Century Photinus was repeatedly cast as a heretical predecessor of early Unitarians for his denial of the pre-existence of Christ.

He makes the Father and the Word one Person (prosopon). The Word is equally with the Father unbegotten, or is called a part of the Father, eternally in Him as our logos is in us. The latent Word (endiathetos) becomes the explicit Word (prophorikos) not, apparently, at the creation, but at the Incarnation, for only then is He really Son. The Divine Substance can be dilated and contracted (so St. Hilary translates platynesthai and systellesthai, while Mercator's version of Nestorius's fourth sermon gives "extended and collected"). This is exactly the wording of Sabellius, who said that God platynetai, is broadened out, into Son and Spirit. To Photinus the expansion forms the Son, who is not, until the human birth of Christ. Hence before the Incarnation there is no Son, and God is Father and Word, Logopator. The Incarnation seems to have been conceived after a Nestorian fashion, for Photinus declared the Son of Mary to be mere man, and this is the best-known point in his teaching. He was consequently classed with Paul of Samosata; Jerome even calls him an Ebionite, probably because, like Mercator, he believed him to have denied the Virgin birth. But this is perhaps an error. He certainly said that the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ and that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. By His union with the prophoric Word, Christ was the Son. The Holy Ghost is identified like the Word with the Unbegotten; He is a part of the Father and the Word, as the Word is a part of the Father. It is evident that Photinus went so far beyond Marcellus that it is unfair to call him his follower.

True Church Fathers Theodotus of Byzantium

Theodotus of Byzantium

Theodotus of Byzantium (Ancient Greek: Θεoδoτoς; also known as Theodotus the Tanner, Theodotus the Shoemaker, lived late 2nd century) was an early Christian writer from Byzantium, one of several named Theodotus whose writings were condemned as heresy in the early church.

Theodotus believed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as a non-divine man, and though later "adopted" by God upon baptism (that is to say, he became the Christ), was not himself God until after his resurrection.

This doctrine, was declared Heresy by Pope Victor I, and Theodotus was excommunicated.

Condemned and excommunicated by Pope Victor in 190, Theodotus nevertheless continued to acquire disciples, forming his own Church community that lasted until the end of the 4th century.

This Church community of Theodotus held the original doctrine of the church which, had continued in-corrupted until Victor I came to the office of bishop of Rome, the truth being first perverted by Victor I and his successor Zephyrinus (c. 199).

Hippolytus reports that as to the Deity and the work of creation the doctrine of Theodotus was orthodox, but as to our Lord's person he agreed with Gnostic speculations, especially in distinguishing Jesus and Christ. The miraculous conception of Jesus he was willing to admit; but he held Him a man like others, though of the highest virtue and piety. He taught that at the baptism of Jesus, Christ descended on Him in the form of a dove, and that He was then able to work miracles, though He had never exhibited any before: but even so He was not God; though some of the sect were willing to acknowledge His right to the title after His resurrection.

Did the Apostle Peter EVER Visit Rome?

Did the Apostle Peter EVER Visit Rome?

Fulfilling the instruction of the Lord to his disciples when faced with times of persecution (Mat. 10:23). Peter sought a place of greater safety, and is next mentioned as being present at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:7).

Peter, having fled Jerusalem, had gone to ‘another place’ (Acts 12:17). This place was not Rome, as is often thought. This idea is based on the book of Revelation, where Rome is compared with Babylon. However, the Babylon referred to at the end of 1Peter denotes an actual place. To ensure that Herod could not find him, the apostle had to leave the territory of the Roman Empire. For that reason, he went to Babylon, where there was a Jewish community. From there he writes to Gentile Christians in Asia Minor,

According to Peter’s own testimony, he composed his first letter while at Babylon. (1Pe 5:13) Possibly also from there he wrote his second letter. Available evidence clearly shows that “Babylon” refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed. Having been entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon. (Gal 2:8, 9)

There was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era. Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter, “Babylon,” was the literal place by that name. The bible Never states that Peter was ever in Rome.

When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he never mentions or refers to Peter. Had Peter been a leading bishop there, this would have been an unlikely exclusion. Also, Peter’s name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul’s letters written from Rome—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

The Ecclesiastical Writers of the period succeeding the times of the New Testament, are not reliable. They all belonged to that class of men who set up for successors of the apostles with clerical authority; and where facts were wanting, did not hesitate to substitute conjecture. For our own part, we rely upon nothing ecclesiastical outside the Old and New Testaments. What they testify we believe; but whereon they are silent, we have no faith. Peter may refer to Rome in using Babylon; but there is no evidence that he certainly does. If by Babylon he do indeed mean Rome, it favours the supposition that the Apocalypse was written before his decease; because this is the only Scripture extant in which Rome is certainly comprehended in the name.