The meaning of heresy

**The Gnostics Were Not Teaching False Doctrines, but Were Sectarians According to the Original Meaning of αἵρεσις**

---

The word *heresy* in its modern sense—implying false doctrine and moral corruption—bears little resemblance to its original meaning in Greek antiquity. The Greek term **αἵρεσις (*hairesis*)** did not mean “false teaching.” It meant **a choice**, **a chosen course**, or **a school of thought.** The transformation of *hairesis* from a neutral word describing a philosophical or religious faction into a weaponized label of condemnation occurred only after the rise of episcopal authority in the second century. Therefore, when early Christian writers called the Gnostics “heretics,” they were not describing men and women who were necessarily false teachers, but rather those who belonged to **a different sect**—a legitimate *hairesis* in the original Greek sense.

---

### 1. The Original Meaning in Classical Greek

The earliest use of **αἵρεσις** in Greek literature reveals that it denoted an act of **choice** or a **course of action deliberately taken.** Derived from the verb **αἱρέω** or **αἱρέομαι**, meaning “to take,” “to choose,” or “to prefer,” the noun developed naturally to refer to any system or school of thought that one chose to follow.

In **Herodotus (Histories 3.80)**, the word describes a decision or selection:

> “Having made their choice (*hairesis*), they took their course of action.”

Here, the word bears no religious or moral meaning; it simply indicates a deliberate decision. Similarly, **Plato**, in *Republic* 617e, employs *hairesis* in the myth of Er to describe the selection of one’s life path:

> “Each soul was required to make its choice (*hairesin*) of life.”

The philosopher **Aristotle**, in *Topics* 101a37, speaks of “the *hairesis* of philosophy”—that is, a philosophical school or persuasion. The Stoics, Epicureans, and Peripatetics each had their own *hairesis*. In **Polybius (Histories 6.56.6)**, the term appears again, describing political factions in the Roman Republic. In none of these examples is *hairesis* negative or heretical. It refers only to a **chosen path, sect, or party**.

In Classical Greek usage, then, *hairesis* was a neutral term describing one’s **adopted discipline or affiliation**—whether philosophical, political, or professional. A man could belong to the *hairesis* of Epicurus just as another might belong to the *hairesis* of Aristotle.

---

### 2. The Hellenistic and Jewish Usage

As Greek culture spread through the Hellenistic world, Jewish writers adopted *hairesis* to describe divisions or schools within Judaism. In this period, the word was used not to denounce, but to **categorize**.

**Josephus**, the first-century Jewish historian, provides a clear example. In *Antiquities* 13.171 and 293, and *Wars* 2.119, he refers to the **Pharisees**, **Sadducees**, and **Essenes** as the three principal *haireseis* of the Jewish people:

> “The Jews have three *haireseis*, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.”

Josephus does not use the term pejoratively; he treats these sects as legitimate schools within the same religious tradition, much like the philosophical schools among the Greeks. Thus, in Hellenistic Jewish usage, *hairesis* meant **a religious party or sect**, not a deviation from truth.

---

### 3. The Use of αἵρεσις in the New Testament

The New Testament writers inherited this same neutral meaning. In the *Acts of the Apostles*, the term *hairesis* is applied several times to Jewish sects and, later, to the followers of Jesus.

* **Acts 5:17** – “Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, which is the *hairesis* of the Sadducees, were filled with indignation.”

* **Acts 15:5** – “There rose up certain of the *hairesis* of the Pharisees which believed…”

* **Acts 24:5** – Tertullus accuses Paul before Felix, saying: “We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the *hairesis* of the Nazarenes.”

* **Acts 24:14** – Paul responds: “After the way which they call *hairesis*, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”

Here, Paul directly acknowledges that his movement—the early Christian community—was being called a *hairesis* by the religious establishment. Yet Paul accepts the label without apology, affirming that his worship of the Deity accords with the Scriptures. This passage is crucial: it shows that the first Christians were themselves considered a *sect* within Judaism. The charge of “heresy,” as later understood, did not exist. They were simply a **school** within a larger tradition, no different in structure from the Pharisees or Sadducees.

Even in **1 Corinthians 11:19**, when Paul says, “There must also be *haireseis* among you,” he refers to divisions or factions, not necessarily false beliefs. The context concerns social and communal disorder, not doctrinal corruption.

Thus, within the New Testament itself, *hairesis* never meant “false doctrine.” It always referred to **sects, parties, or divisions**—whether in Judaism or among the followers of Jesus.

---

### 4. The Transformation of Meaning in Early Christianity

The pejorative sense of *hairesis* as “false doctrine” only appeared after the second century, when institutional Christianity began to define **orthodoxy** (right belief) and **heterodoxy** (other belief). As bishops sought to unify doctrine and authority, rival Christian interpretations—such as those of the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Montanists—were branded *heresies.*

Writers like **Irenaeus** (*Adversus Haereses*), **Tertullian**, and **Hippolytus** used the term to condemn alternative theological schools. Yet the irony is clear: the same word once applied neutrally to the *Pharisees*, *Sadducees*, and *Christians* was now used by Christians to stigmatize one another.

The Valentinian, Sethian, and other Gnostic schools were not inherently false; they were *haireseis* in the classical and biblical sense—distinct **sects** that offered their own interpretations of Scripture and cosmology. Like the Stoics and Epicureans, they had their teachers, their systems, and their chosen ways. Their doctrines differed from those of the episcopal hierarchy, but difference does not equal falsehood. The later Church redefined the term to enforce conformity, turning a neutral word into a label of condemnation.

---

### 5. Paul and the Gnostics: A Shared Accusation

Paul’s own experience, as recorded in Acts 24:14, parallels that of the later Gnostics. Both were accused of belonging to a *hairesis*—a sect contrary to the accepted authority. Yet Paul’s defense is telling: he does not deny being part of a *sect*; he denies that his worship is false. He insists that his beliefs align with “all things written in the law and the prophets.” His faith is true, even if others call it a *hairesis*.

In the same way, Gnostic Christians claimed fidelity to the divine revelation but interpreted it differently. They saw themselves not as corrupters of truth but as seekers of deeper understanding. The bishops, like the Pharisees of Paul’s time, used *hairesis* as a tool of exclusion, but the word itself never implied error.

Thus, to call the Gnostics “heretics” in the modern sense is anachronistic. In the language of the New Testament and the Hellenistic world, they were **sectarians**—people who chose a particular way (*hairesis*) of interpreting divine things.

---

### 6. Conclusion

The historical and linguistic evidence demonstrates that **αἵρεσις** originally meant **choice**, **school**, or **sect**, not “false teaching.” From Herodotus to Plato, from Josephus to Paul, the term was consistently used to denote a particular path or group within a broader tradition. The early Christians themselves were called a *hairesis* by the Jewish authorities, just as the later Gnostics were called *haireseis* by the bishops of the emerging Catholic Church.

When the meaning of *hairesis* shifted in the second century, it reflected not a change in truth, but a change in **power**. The dominant ecclesiastical party redefined the word to secure its own authority and suppress rival interpretations. But according to the original Greek sense, the Gnostics were not “heretics” at all; they were **sectarians**, thinkers who chose a distinct *way* of worshiping the Deity, much like Paul and his followers in the first century.

To reclaim the word *hairesis* is to restore historical accuracy and intellectual honesty. The Gnostics, like Paul before them, simply followed a chosen path—a *choice* of understanding the divine mysteries. Whether one accepts their doctrines or not, they stood within the legitimate spectrum of the early Christian *haireseis*, heirs to the same freedom of choice that characterized Greek philosophy and Jewish sectarianism alike.

In truth, the Gnostics were never false teachers; they were **choosers**—those who, like the philosophers of old and the apostle himself, sought truth along a different yet earnest path.

**The Gnostics and the Orthodox: Sectarians United by the Meaning of αἵρεσις**

---

In the history of early Christianity, the term *heresy* has often been used to draw a sharp boundary between “orthodox” belief and “false” teaching. Yet this modern understanding obscures the true meaning of the Greek word **αἵρεσις (*hairesis*)**, which in the first century did not mean *false doctrine* but rather a **sect, school, or chosen way**. The word comes from the verb *αἱρέομαι*, “to choose,” and referred to one’s deliberate alignment with a particular interpretation or community. The Stoics, Epicureans, and Peripatetics were all *haireseis*—distinct schools of thought. Likewise, within Judaism, Josephus used the same word to describe the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Even the followers of Jesus were called a *hairesis* in Acts 24:14, where Paul admits before Felix, “After the way which they call *hairesis*, so worship I the God of my fathers.”

Thus, when we examine the so-called “Gnostic” writings, we should not assume they were false or deceptive doctrines. They were **Christian sects**—communities within the wider Christian movement who held different, yet often overlapping, understandings of the same truths. When read carefully, many texts from the *Nag Hammadi Library* affirm the same essential doctrines held by Orthodox Christianity: that Jesus was the Son of God and the Son of Man, that he came in the flesh, died, and rose bodily from the dead. Far from being deniers of the incarnation or the resurrection, these writings preserve a distinctly corporeal faith—one that speaks of *true flesh* and *real resurrection*.

---

### 1. The Lord as Son of God and Son of Man

The **Treatise on the Resurrection** begins with the statement:

> “How did the Lord proclaim things while he existed in flesh and after he had revealed himself as Son of God? He lived in this place where you remain, speaking about the Law of Nature—but I call it ‘Death’. Now the Son of God was Son of Man.”

This passage confesses precisely what Orthodox Christianity professes: that Jesus is both *Son of God* and *Son of Man*. It affirms the union of divine and human nature in the one who revealed himself in flesh. The author contrasts the corruptible world, which he calls “Death,” with the divine life manifested in the Son’s incarnate existence. This is not docetism or illusion; it is a recognition of the Deity’s presence in human form—the same truth confessed in the Nicene and Apostolic traditions.

---

### 2. The Flesh of Jesus

The **Gospel of Thomas** (Saying 28) records Jesus’ own declaration:

> “I took my stand in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh.”

This simple statement is profoundly orthodox. The writer affirms Jesus’ corporeal presence in the world—the Word made flesh. The *Text of Melchizedek*, another work from the Nag Hammadi collection, defends the same belief with remarkable precision:

> “They will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten; that he does not eat, even though he eats; that he does not drink, even though he drinks; that he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised; that he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh; that he did not come to suffering, though he came to suffering; that he did not rise from the dead, though he arose from the dead.”

This passage denounces those who deny the corporeal nature, death, and resurrection of Christ. It insists that Jesus *was begotten*, *ate and drank*, *was circumcised*, *suffered*, and *rose bodily*. Such statements directly oppose the later docetic movements that denied Christ’s real humanity. They affirm what the apostolic writings declare: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” (1 John 4:2).

---

### 3. The Resurrection of the Flesh

The **Treatise on the Resurrection** continues:

> “If you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.”

Here the author explicitly denies that the resurrection is symbolic or spiritualized. The resurrection is real, more real than the transitory world itself. The same insistence appears in the **Gospel of Philip**:

> “The resurrection is real; it is not an illusion. I condemn those who say the flesh will not rise… It is necessary to arise in this flesh, since everything exists in it.”

The text upholds the resurrection of the same body that now lives and dies. It describes the transformation from mortal to immortal—“spiritual flesh,” as Paul calls it in 1 Corinthians 15:44.

Later in the same gospel we read:

> “[The master] was conceived from what is imperishable, through God. The master rose from the dead, but he did not come into being as he was. Rather, his body was completely perfect. It was of flesh, and this flesh was true flesh. Our flesh is not true flesh but only an image of the true.”

This striking passage parallels Paul’s contrast between corruptible and incorruptible bodies (1 Cor. 15:42–53). The risen Christ’s body is “true flesh”—not illusion or ghost, but perfected corporeality. Such teaching stands in full agreement with the Orthodox belief in the tangible resurrection of Jesus.

---

### 4. The Death and Cross of Christ

The **Gospel of Philip** also recalls Jesus’ cry from the cross:

> “My God, my God, O Lord, why have you abandoned me? He said these words on the cross. But not from that place. He was already gone.”

The text recognizes the crucifixion as a real historical event, while also reflecting on the transcendent identity of the Savior. The **Apocryphon of James** conveys a similar reverence for the cross and death of Christ:

> “Remember my cross and my death and you will live… Truly I say to you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the Kingdom of God.”

Such statements reveal that the authors of these works not only knew of the crucifixion but considered belief in it essential for salvation. This is the same central proclamation of the apostolic gospel: “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23).

The **Gospel of Truth** likewise affirms that Jesus’ death brought life to many:

> “The compassionate, faithful Jesus was patient in his sufferings until he took that book, since he knew that his death meant life for many… For this reason Jesus appeared. He put on that book. He was nailed to a cross. He affixed the edict of the Father to the cross.”

This passage portrays the crucifixion not as illusion but as divine act—the visible sign of the Father’s purpose, bringing life and revelation to humankind.

---

### 5. The Spiritual Body and the Post-Resurrection Appearance

The **Sophia of Jesus Christ** opens with a scene after the resurrection:

> “After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers… the Savior appeared—not in his previous form, but in the invisible spirit. His likeness resembles a great angel of light… But his resemblance I must not describe. No mortal flesh could endure it, but only pure, perfect flesh, like that which he taught us about on the mountain.”

This depiction matches Paul’s teaching that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” but that the mortal puts on immortality (1 Cor. 15:50–54). The resurrected body is still flesh, yet perfected—*pure, perfect flesh* that transcends mortality. The author does not deny the body but exalts it as transformed and incorruptible.

---

### 6. Sectarians, Not Heretics

When one considers these passages, the line between “Gnostic” and “Orthodox” grows remarkably thin. Both affirm Jesus’ divine sonship, incarnation, death, and bodily resurrection. The differences lie mainly in interpretation and cosmology, not in the essential facts of faith. The authors of these texts did not deny the Deity or the resurrection; they sought to understand their deeper meaning.

By the standards of the first century, these believers were simply members of a different *hairesis*—a sect within the diverse landscape of early Christianity. Just as Paul’s movement was called a *hairesis* by the Jews, the Gnostics were labeled *haireseis* by the bishops of the emerging Catholic Church. Yet the original Greek term does not imply error; it denotes a chosen way, a distinct school of thought.

---

### 7. Conclusion

The evidence from the *Nag Hammadi Library* shows that many so-called Gnostic texts affirm the same core beliefs as Orthodox Christianity. They proclaim Jesus as Son of God and Son of Man, confess that he came in the flesh, died on the cross, and rose bodily from the dead. Their theology of resurrection—speaking of “true flesh” and “pure, perfect flesh”—is fully consistent with the apostolic message of transformation from mortality to immortality.

To brand these writings as “heresy” in the modern sense is to misunderstand both the Greek language and the history of early Christianity. In their own time, these communities were not “false teachers” but **sectarians**—followers of a particular *hairesis*, a chosen path within the diverse body of believers. As Paul himself once stood accused of belonging to a *hairesis*, so too did the Gnostics suffer the charge from their contemporaries. But as the Scriptures and the Greek language testify, *hairesis* originally signified not corruption, but choice—an act of seeking and devotion.

Therefore, the Gnostics were not enemies of truth; they were fellow seekers within the same great household of faith, choosing a path toward understanding the mysteries of the Deity. Like Paul before them, they could rightly say, “After the way which they call *hairesis*, so worship I the God of my fathers.”

Gnostics Who Reject Docetism

# Gnostics Who Reject Docetism

Orthodox Christians often claim that the Gnostic Gospels found in the Nag Hammadi Library contain false teaching. However, after reading these texts carefully, it becomes evident that many of them affirm doctrines consistent with Orthodox belief, particularly the corporeality and humanity of Jesus. Contrary to accusations of heresy, these Gnostic writings often reject the very ideas—such as Docetism—that many associate with them.

Some critics assert that Gnostic Christians deny the virgin birth or the fleshly nature of Jesus. Yet the Gospel of Philip demonstrates a nuanced critique of these misunderstandings:

> "Some said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said 'My Father who is in Heaven' (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply 'My father'." — *Gospel of Philip*

This passage demonstrates that the Gospel of Philip does not blindly adhere to traditional claims of a miraculous conception by a woman. Instead, it emphasizes the unique role of Mary and critiques the notion that Jesus’ sonship requires a biological miracle. The text clarifies that Jesus’ status as the Son of God should be understood through his divine mission and election, rather than an innate or mystical divinity.

The *Treatise on the Resurrection* further clarifies the nature of Jesus and his relationship to humanity:

> "How did the Lord proclaim things while he existed in flesh and after he had revealed himself as Son of God? He lived in this place where you remain, speaking about the Law of Nature - but I call it 'Death'. Now the Son of God, was Son of Man." — *Treatise on the Resurrection*

This passage must be read in conjunction with the critique of the virgin birth found in the *Gospel of Philip*. Together, they affirm that Jesus’ revelation as the Son of God occurred at his baptism, as recorded in Luke 3:22 in some early manuscripts:

> "You are my Son, today I have begotten you."

Additionally, Paul affirms in Romans 1:4 that Jesus’ resurrection demonstrates his status as the Son of God. The important theological point here is that being called the Son of God does not imply inherent divinity; rather, it signifies election or adoption. Jesus is acknowledged as the Son of God by designation, while simultaneously remaining Son of Man. Thus, Gnostic Christians who reject Docetism uphold that Jesus is both fully human and designated by God as the Son.

## The Nature of Jesus

The Gospel of Thomas emphasizes the corporeal nature of Jesus, directly contradicting any claims that he was non-corporeal:

> "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh." — *Gospel of Thomas, Saying 28*

This affirmation that Jesus appeared in flesh is an explicitly orthodox teaching, directly opposing Docetic claims that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion. Similarly, *The Text of Melchizedek* critiques those who deny the physical realities of Jesus’ life, suffering, and resurrection:

> "Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, though he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, though he arose from the dead." — *The Text of Melchizedek*

This passage is a strong rejection of modern Gnostic reinterpretations that deny the true flesh, suffering, and resurrection of Jesus. It underscores the importance of acknowledging the physical reality of Jesus’ life, death, and rising, and condemns any denial of these foundational truths.

The *Gospel of Philip* similarly addresses the reality of Jesus’ flesh, describing it as “true flesh” and distinct from ordinary human flesh, which is merely an image of the authentic form:

> "[The master] was conceived from what [is imperishable], through God. The [master rose] from the dead, but [he did not come into being as he] was. Rather, his [body] was [completely] perfect. [It was] of flesh, and this [flesh] was true flesh. [Our flesh] is not true flesh but only an image of the true." — *Gospel of Philip*

Here, the Gospel of Philip distinguishes between the ordinary, mortal human body and the perfected flesh of Jesus. Yet it clearly affirms that Jesus’ body was real and material, directly opposing the notion of an illusory or purely spiritual appearance. In this context, “true flesh” refers to the uncorrupted and imperishable quality of Jesus’ body, not a denial of corporeality.

## Gnostics Who Uphold Orthodoxy

Through these texts, it is evident that there is a branch of Gnostic Christianity that fully rejects Docetism. These Gnostics affirm the reality of Jesus’ birth, flesh, suffering, and resurrection. They maintain that Jesus was truly Son of Man, fully human, and also Son of God by divine election. This understanding preserves the integrity of both Jesus’ humanity and his divine mission without resorting to the metaphysical distortions found in Docetic teachings.

By highlighting the textual evidence from the Nag Hammadi Library, it becomes clear that accusations of heresy against all Gnostics are overstated. Instead, texts such as the *Gospel of Thomas*, *Gospel of Philip*, *Treatise on the Resurrection*, and *The Text of Melchizedek* reveal a consistent emphasis on Jesus’ corporeality and resurrection. Far from being anti-Orthodox, these writings reinforce key Christian doctrines concerning the incarnation and the physical reality of Christ.

In summary, Gnostics who reject Docetism adhere to several essential orthodox teachings:

1. Jesus appeared in the flesh and was fully human.

2. Jesus was the Son of God by election or divine designation.

3. Jesus’ birth, life, and resurrection were corporeal events.

4. Ordinary human flesh is distinct from Jesus’ perfected, “true flesh.”

5. Modern Gnostic reinterpretations that deny Jesus’ suffering and resurrection are condemned by these texts.

This branch of Gnostic Christianity demonstrates that the Nag Hammadi Library cannot simply be dismissed as heretical. Instead, it contains sophisticated theological reflections that affirm the reality of Jesus’ humanity and resurrection, showing a Gnostic commitment to preserving the corporeal truth of the Lord. By rejecting Docetism, these Gnostics stand in alignment with core orthodox principles, challenging the misrepresentation of Gnostic thought in modern Christian polemics.

The texts from Nag Hammadi offer a corrective to both misinterpretations and overly simplistic readings of Gnostic literature. They affirm the orthodox truth that Jesus Christ, though Son of God, lived in the flesh, suffered, died, and rose from the dead, providing a model for understanding the relationship between the divine and human in early Christian thought.

---

Does the Gospel of Thomas teach the Trinity?

**Does the Gospel of Thomas Teach the Trinity?**

The Gospel of Thomas, a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, presents a theological framework that is markedly different from the Trinitarian doctrine developed in later Christian orthodoxy. Careful examination of its sayings demonstrates that it emphasizes the **distinctness of the Father (the Undivided One) from Jesus**, the subordinate and derivative nature of the Son, and the role of the Spirit as emanation rather than as a separate person. In this light, Thomas offers a non-Trinitarian Christology, consistently portraying Jesus as a revealer sent by the Father, not as coequal with the Father or as part of a triune Godhead.

---

### **Saying 61: Jesus and the Undivided One**

In Saying 61, Jesus speaks to Salome:

> "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and the other will live."

> Salome asked, “Who are You, man, that You, as though from the One, have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?”

> Jesus replied, “I am He who exists from the Undivided One. I was given some of the things of my Father.”

> Salome responded, “I am Your disciple.”

> Jesus said, “Therefore I say, if he is <undivided>, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness.”

Here, the “Undivided One” clearly refers to the Father. Jesus’ acknowledgment that he has **been given some of the things of his Father** establishes a **fundamental distinction** between himself and the Father. He is derived, not coequal, and his fullness is contingent on remaining unified with the Father. This directly contradicts the Trinitarian assertion of coequality and shared essence among Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus is a subordinate revealer who participates in the light of the Father, but he is not the source of divinity itself.

---

### **Saying 30: Three Gods vs. One**

Saying 30 further underscores the non-Trinitarian perspective:

> “Jesus said, ‘Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there is two or one, I am with him.’”

The saying contrasts “three gods” with “one alone,” implying that God is truly singular. Thomas appears to challenge any notion of a multiplicity within the divine essence. Jesus affirms his presence with the **one God**, but he is not himself included as a coequal divine person. This saying can be interpreted as a critique of Trinitarian logic, highlighting the unitarian nature of the divine.

---

### **Other Sayings Contradicting the Trinity**

A broader survey of Thomas reveals consistent non-Trinitarian themes:

1. **Saying 3** – *“The kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father.”*

   * Direct access to the Father is emphasized; no mediator of coequal divine essence is needed.

2. **Saying 13** – *“I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have tended.”*

   * Jesus is a revealer, not an ontologically equal deity.

3. **Saying 15** – *“When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves and worship him. That one is your Father.”*

   * Worship belongs exclusively to the Father, highlighting the Son’s subordination.

4. **Saying 28** – *“I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found all of them drunk; I found none of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of men…”*

   * Jesus is distinct from the one who sent him, acting as messenger, not origin of life.

5. **Saying 50** – *“If they say to you, ‘Where did you come from?’ say to them, ‘We came from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established itself, and appeared in their image.’”*

   * The Father (light) is self-existent; Jesus originates from it, emphasizing derivation rather than consubstantiality.

6. **Saying 77** – *“I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood, I am there; lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”*

   * Jesus is the visible manifestation of the Father’s light, not the Father himself.

7. **Saying 79** – *“Blessed are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it.”*

   * Authority and worship are directed toward the Father alone, not Jesus.

8. **Saying 99** – *“Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give the Deity what belongs to the Deity, and give me what is mine.”*

   * Jesus separates himself from the Deity, demonstrating distinction and hierarchy.

9. **Saying 100–101** – *“My true mother gave me life.”*

   * Jesus receives life from the Father, not inherently possessing it; he is derivative.

10. **Saying 108** – *“Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am; I myself shall become that person…”*

    * His nature is shareable, indicating **participatory divinity**, not exclusive triune substance.

11. **Saying 112** – *“Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul; woe to the soul that depends on the flesh.”*

    * The Father, Son, and creation follow hierarchical, not coequal, relationships.

---

### **Analysis and Implications**

Across these sayings, several themes emerge:

* **One Source**: The Father, the Undivided One, is self-existent, absolute, and unshared in essence.

* **Derivative Son**: Jesus is a revealer and participant in the Father’s light, subordinate and dependent.

* **No Coequal Spirit**: The Spirit is never presented as a distinct coequal person; its activity emanates from the Father.

* **Rejection of Shared Divine Essence**: Sayings consistently depict Jesus as **separate from the Father**, undermining Trinitarian claims of homoousios.

Thus, Thomas presents a framework in which God is **unitary**, Jesus is **derivative**, and the Spirit is **emanation**, forming a clearly **non-Trinitarian theology**.

---

### **Conclusion**

The Gospel of Thomas consistently teaches a **non-Trinitarian understanding of God and Jesus**. Jesus is never portrayed as coequal with the Father or as sharing a single divine substance with a triune Godhead. Instead, he is presented as **sent from the Undivided One**, derivative and subordinate, offering revelation and transformative guidance. The Father alone is unbegotten, the source of life, and worthy of worship, while the Spirit or light functions as an emanation, not as a distinct person.

Sayings such as **61, 30, 3, 13, 15, 28, 50, 77, 79, 99, 100–101, 108, and 112** collectively demonstrate that the Gospel of Thomas aligns with **early unitarian perspectives** and **explicitly or implicitly refutes the Trinitarian doctrine**. Any interpretation claiming Thomas teaches the Trinity is inconsistent with the text; the sayings uphold a theology in which the Father is supreme, Jesus is derivative, and unity with the Father brings light, while division results in darkness.

The Gospel of Thomas, therefore, provides clear evidence that **early Christian thought included non-Trinitarian streams**, emphasizing the distinction between the Father and the Son and rejecting the concept of a coequal triune God.

---

## Does the Gospel of Thomas Teach the Trinity?

### Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity — that God is one in essence yet exists as three coequal, coeternal Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) — is central to much of mainstream Christianity. But when one examines the *Gospel of Thomas*, a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus (logia), a different theological vision emerges. The Gospel of Thomas emphatically **does not support** a Trinitarian view. Rather, it presents a **unitarian or subordinationist Christology**: one supreme, undivided Father (or “Light”), a derived Son (Jesus), and a Spirit or “light” that flows from the Father but is not a separate coequal person.

In this article, I will argue — through close reading of key logia, reference to both the Coptic and Greek versions, and scholarly reflection — that the Gospel of Thomas teaches **against** the Trinity. Key sayings such as **Saying 61** and **Saying 30**, along with others, will be analyzed in detail.

---

### Textual Witnesses & Manuscripts

Before turning to the theology, it is important to survey the textual basis of the Gospel of Thomas. The most complete witness is a Coptic version preserved in **Nag Hammadi Codex II, tractate 2**. ([Gnosis][1])

In addition, there are **Greek fragmentary witnesses** from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655), which include several of the logia (notably including Saying 30). ([University of Toronto][2])

Scholars such as April DeConick have studied the **Greek–Coptic textual differences** and argued that in many places the Coptic reflects theological emphasis not fully matched in the Greek. ([Gospel of Thomas][3])

Interlinear editions (e.g., by Michael Grondin) provide side-by-side Coptic/English (and sometimes Greek) glossing, which can help us read the precise terms used. ([Gospel of Thomas][4])

Given these textual resources, we can fairly reconstruct the theological claims of Thomas and assess how they relate to Trinitarian doctrine.

---

### Key Theological Themes in the Gospel of Thomas

Before diving into specific logia, it is useful to sketch the broader theological architecture of Thomas:

1. **The Undivided Source**: Thomas often speaks of a highest principle, sometimes called the “Undivided One,” “the Light,” or simply the Father, from which Jesus comes.

2. **Subordinate Jesus**: Jesus is not coequal with this source; he is derivative, sent, given something of the Father’s “things” (knowledge, light, authority), but not identical with him.

3. **Emanation, Not Personhood**: The Holy Spirit or “light” is present, but not as a distinct person in equal standing; rather, it flows from the Father or is shared with the Son.

4. **Unity vs Division**: Thomas emphasizes spiritual unity (undividedness) as essential. Division results in darkness; unity in the light.

5. **Direct Access Without Mediation**: There is no need for a mediating “God-man” in the sense of Trinitarian Christology; believers can know the Father directly, and Jesus is a revealer of that truth.

These themes already suggest a **non-Trinitarian ontology**. Now let’s analyze specific sayings to illustrate how Thomas teaches these.

---

### Analysis of Key Sayings

#### Saying 61: Jesus and the Undivided One

One of the most telling passages is **Saying 61** (in the Lambdin translation):

> “Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and the other will live.”

> Salome said to him, “Who are You, man, that You, as though from the One, have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?”

> Jesus said to her, “I am He who exists from the Undivided One. I was given some of the things of my Father.”

> <Salome said,> “I am Your disciple.”

> Jesus said to her, “Therefore I say, if he is <undivided>, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness.” ([Gnosis][1])

**Theological import**:

* **Origin from the Undivided One**: Jesus identifies himself not simply as coming from a source, but from a specifically “Undivided One.” The phrase “Undivided One” strongly suggests a singular, indivisible deity (often understood as the Father) distinct from Jesus.

* **Derived gifts**: Jesus says he “was given some of the things of my Father.” This language of “given” indicates **possession by participation**, not equality. He does not claim to be fully the same as his Father, but to share in what the Father grants.

* **Moral consequence of unity/division**: Jesus then warns that if someone remains “undivided,” they will be filled with light; but if “divided,” they will be filled with darkness. The contrast underscores a hierarchical, participatory ontology: unity with the source leads to enlightenment; disunity leads to ruin.

From a Trinitarian standpoint, one would expect more language of **co-equality, consubstantiality, and co-eternality**: for example, that the Son is *of the same essence* as the Father, or that the Spirit is a distinct Person. None of that is present in Thomas. Instead, the metaphors and ontology reflect **dependence and derivation**, not coequality.

---

#### Saying 30: Three Gods vs. One Alone

Another pivotal text is **Saying 30**, which survives in both Greek and Coptic forms. In the Coptic version, Jesus says:

> “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there is two or one, I am with him.” ([Gospels.net][5])

In the Greek fragments (P.Oxy.), the wording is very similar:

> Ὅπου ἂν ὦσιν τρεῖς, εἰσὶν θεοί· καὶ ὅπου εἷς ἐστὶν μόνος, λέγω· ἐγὼ εἰμί μετ’ αὐτοῦ. ([University of Toronto][2])

**Theological import**:

* **Critique of “three gods”**: Jesus seems to be making a theological distinction: “where there are three, gods are there” — implying that multiplicity in the divine is less true or less proper. The phrase “they *are* gods” could be seen as ironic or critical, emphasizing the plurality but perhaps also the failure of true unity.

* **Affirmation of the one**: When “there is one alone,” Jesus says, “I am with him.” Rather than joining a triumvirate, he aligns himself *with the one*. This phrase strongly suggests **united presence**, not shared personhood.

* **Against tri-personal ontology**: For Trinitarian doctrine, the Son is not merely “with” the Father; he is consubstantial and coequal. Thomas does not use such language. The use of “three gods” (not three persons in one God) contrasts with Trinitarian formulations.

Thus, Saying 30 directly challenges the very logic of a **triune God**. Rather than affirming three coequal Persons, it draws attention to multiplicity (three gods) in a way that seems to downplay their unity, and then roots spiritual truth in the *one alone* (monos) with whom Jesus unites.

---

#### Other Relevant Sayings

To reinforce the argument that Thomas consistently presents a non‑Trinitarian theology, we should also consider other logia. Below is a selection with theological commentary.

1. **Saying 3**:

   > “The kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father.” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: The “living Father” is directly accessible. There is no need for a separate divine Person (the Son or Spirit) as mediator in an ontological sense; the disciples know the Father intimately through self-discovery.

2. **Saying 13**:

   > “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have tended.” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: Jesus denies being a “master” or divine overlord; instead, he is a caretaker of a spring, a revealer or guide, not an ontological equal.

3. **Saying 15**:

   > “When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves and worship him. That one is your Father.” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: The entity to be worshiped is the Father, not Jesus. Jesus points to a transcendental figure (“one not born of woman”) as the true object of reverence. This reinforces the Father’s supremacy and singularity.

4. **Saying 28**:

   > “I stood in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found all of them drunk; I found none of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of men…” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: Jesus views himself as **sent** into the world (“appeared … in flesh”), distinct from the source who sent him. His mission is to awaken, not to be worshiped as equal deity.

5. **Saying 50**:

   > “If they say to you, ‘Where did you come from?’ say to them, ‘We came from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established itself, and appeared in their image.’” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: The “light” is self-existent (“came into being by itself”), which is characteristic of an unbegotten God (the Father). Jesus and his disciples come *from* that light; they are not identical with it.

6. **Saying 77**:

   > “I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood, I am there; lift up the stone, and you will find me there.” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: On one level, this seems cosmic — Jesus claims “I am the light … over all things.” But within Thomas’ ontology, this is not a claim to be the unoriginated source; instead, Jesus is the **emanation** of the higher light of the Father, the presence of divine light in all creation. He is not simply identical with the Father; rather, he is the **instrument** or **manifestation** of that divine light.

7. **Saying 79**:

   > “Blessed are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it.” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: Faithfulness is directed toward the “word of the Father,” not toward a triune mediator. This reinforces that the Father is the primary locus of authority.

8. **Saying 99**:

   > “They showed Jesus a gold coin … He said … ‘Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, give the Deity what belongs to the Deity, and give me what is mine.’” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: The “Deity” (or “God”) is clearly distinguished from Jesus. This three-part division (“Caesar … the Deity … me”) suggests that Jesus is not simply another expression of God but a distinct being who has his own “portion” that is separate from the Deity’s.

9. **Saying 100 / 101**:

   > “Whoever does not hate his father … cannot be my disciple … My true mother gave me life.” ([Gnosis][1])

   * *Comment*: Here Jesus refers to a “true mother” who gave him life, a metaphorical reference, often understood to mean the divine origin (the Father). He distinguishes his earthly mother from his “true mother,” indicating that spiritual birth is from the Father, not from himself. This further underscores his dependence and derivation.

10. **Saying 108**:

    > “Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.” ([Gnosis][1])

    * *Comment*: This is profound: Jesus offers his own nature to be shared (“become as I am”). This **participatory ontology** implies that his identity is not fixed and exclusive; others can become like him. Such sharing is incompatible with the concept of a separate, coequal Person in a triune God who is unique in eternal being.

11. **Saying 112**:

    > “Woe to the flesh that depends on the soul; woe to the soul that depends on the flesh.” ([Gnosis][1])

    * *Comment*: This saying speaks to a layered, hierarchical cosmology: corporeal flesh, soul, and ultimately the divine (light) are not on the same plane. The Father (undivided divine source) is the highest, while creation and souls depend on that source. There is no hint of three coequal divine persons; rather, there is a structured, dependent, hierarchical reality.

---

### Greek vs. Coptic: Textual and Theological Nuances

Because of the existence of both **Coptic** and **Greek** witnesses, scholars have debated whether some theological nuance — especially regarding Trinitarian readings — may hinge on variant readings or translation choices.

* As noted, **DeConick’s work** highlights that Greek and Coptic versions sometimes diverge, and the Coptic often emphasizes unity, emanation, and derivation more strongly than the Greek. ([Gospel of Thomas][3])

* The **interlinear Coptic-English edition** by Grondin provides precise lexical data, showing how key terms such as “undivided” (Coptic) are used and what conceptual weight they carry. ([Ihtys][6])

* The **Greek lexicon** keyed to the Coptic (also by Grondin) helps to map Greek equivalents of Coptic theological vocabulary. ([Gospel of Thomas][7])

These resources show that the theological structure in Thomas is not an accident of translation: the Coptic text’s emphases reflect a coherent spiritual ontology, not a mistranslation of some proto‑Trinitarian text.

---

### Scholarly Reflection

Many modern scholars agree that the **Gospel of Thomas does not present a fully developed Trinitarian theology**. Instead, it is more aligned with **early Christian unitarianism or subordinationism**. The fact that Jesus in Thomas repeatedly emphasizes his origin from the Father, his reception of “some” of the Father’s things, and his role as a revealer rather than an ontologically equal deity, aligns with theological perspectives that rejected later classical Trinitarian doctrine.

Furthermore, the **absence of explicit Trinitarian vocabulary** (e.g., *homoousios*, “co‑eternal persons,” “persons of the Godhead”) is telling. Thomas does not talk about “three persons in one substance” or “tri‑personal God.” Instead, it talks about **oneness**, **division**, **emanation**, and **participation** — categories that are more compatible with non‑Trinitarian theology.

Some interpreters argue that Thomas could be read as **proto‑Trinitarian**, or that it contains embryonic ideas that later Christian theology developed into Trinitarian doctrine. But such readings often rely on imposing later theological categories onto Thomas rather than reading it on its own terms. For example, some point to Saying 30 (“three gods”) as a potential reference to a triune God. Yet **Thomas’ own logic** seems to criticize or at least distinguish “three gods” from “the one alone.” It does not seem to affirm a trinitarian union; it warns of multiplicity and highlights unity.

---

### Implications for Christian Theology

If one accepts that the Gospel of Thomas teaches a **non‑Trinitarian Christology**, several implications follow:

1. **Early Christian Diversity**: The existence of Thomas shows that early Christian thought was not monolithic. Non‑Trinitarian views existed alongside proto‑orthodox ones.

2. **Christology Without Ontological Equality**: Thomas offers a Christology based on revelation, participation, and derivation rather than on ontological equality. For those who respect Thomas, his vision challenges the idea that the only way into divine life is through a coequal divine Son.

3. **Spiritual Emphasis Over Dogmatic Formulation**: Thomas seems less concerned with metaphysical definitions (person, substance) and more with spiritual transformation, self‑knowledge, and union (or “undividedness”) with the Father.

4. **Reevaluation of the Role of Jesus**: In Thomas, Jesus is primarily a revealer of the Father’s light, not a coequal divine person. This challenges theological traditions that place Jesus ontologically identical with the Father.

5. **Role of the Spirit**: The Spirit in Thomas (if present explicitly) is more like a manifestation or extension of the Father’s light than a distinct, co‑eternal person. This raises important questions for pneumatology (the study of the Spirit) in relation to Trinitarian doctrine.

---

### Possible Objections & Responses

**Objection 1**: *Maybe Thomas is just mystical or symbolic — its talk of “light” and “source” isn’t about real ontology; we cannot extract systematic theology from it.*

* **Response**: While Thomas is certainly mystical, its persistent metaphors of origin, derivation, light, unity/division, and participation are not random. The coherence across many sayings (e.g., 30, 61, 50, 77, 108) suggests a structured worldview: not merely poetic, but ontological.

**Objection 2**: *The Greek fragments might support a Trinitarian reading that the Coptic does not preserve.*

* **Response**: Scholars like DeConick show that, where Greek and Coptic differ, the Coptic tends to emphasize theological unity and emanation more clearly. ([Gospel of Thomas][3]) Also, the Greek fragments are fragmentary and incomplete; they don’t present a fully developed trinitarian theology either.

**Objection 3**: *Thomas might have been edited later, and the theological content could have shifted.*

* **Response**: While redaction is always possible, the **earliest extant recension** (Coptic Nag Hammadi) and the earlier Greek fragments both reflect non‑Trinitarian theology. There is no strong manuscript evidence of a fully trinitarian version in ancient Thomas texts.

**Objection 4**: *Even if Thomas is non‑Trinitarian, that doesn’t prove it is “correct.”*

* **Response**: True — demonstrating that *Thomas does not teach the Trinity* is a descriptive, historical-theological task, not a proof of doctrinal correctness in an ecclesial or systematic sense. But understanding Thomas on its own terms helps us appreciate the diversity of early Christian theology and the range of Christological models beyond the Nicene consensus.

---

### Conclusion

After careful textual and theological analysis, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that **the Gospel of Thomas does not teach the Trinity**. Instead, it consistently presents:

* A single **Undivided One** (the Father),

* A derived **Son** (Jesus) who is subordinate and given part of the Father’s things,

* A concept of **unity vs. division** (light or darkness) rather than **tri‑personal consubstantiality**,

* A **Spirit/light** understood more as emanation or participation than as a separate coequal Person.

Sayings such as **61**, **30**, **3**, **13**, **15**, **28**, **50**, **77**, **79**, **99**, **100–101**, **108**, and **112** collectively form a coherent theological vision that is **non‑Trinitarian**. By centering on participation, emanation, and unity with a singular divine source, Thomas aligns more with early unitarian or subordinationist Christologies than with Trinitarian dogma.

For those interested in the **history of Christian doctrine**, the Gospel of Thomas offers a vital window into alternative early Christianities — ones in which Jesus is not ontologically coequal with the Father, and divine life is accessed through self-recognition, spiritual unity, and participation in the Father’s light.

---

If you like, I can also **provide the full Greek (from Oxyrhynchus) and Coptic text** for the key sayings (30, 61, etc.), with linguistic notes showing how the original language supports non‑Trinitarian readings. Do you want me to do that?

[1]: https://gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library"

[2]: https://sites.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/gth-gk.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com "The Greek Fragments of the Gospel of Thomas"

[3]: https://www.gospel-thomas.net/DeConick_diffs.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "DeConick's Handling of the Greek-Coptic Differences in GThomas"

[4]: https://www.gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Interlinear Gospel of Thomas"

[5]: https://www.gospels.net/thomas/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Gospel of Thomas — Gospels.net"

[6]: https://ihtys.narod.ru/thomas.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Grondin`s Interlinear Coptic/English"

[7]: https://www.gospel-thomas.net/Greek.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Grondin's Greek Lexicon of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (keyed to B. Layton's critical edition)"

Gnostic Adoptionism

**Gnostic Adoptionism**

Some said, “Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.” They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said “My Father who is in Heaven” (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply “My father.” — *Gospel of Philip*

The quotation above from the *Gospel of Philip* reflects an early Christian theological current that challenged the idea of the virgin birth. It presents a distinctly non-Trinitarian interpretation of Jesus’ origin, closely aligned with what later came to be known as *Adoptionism*. In this view, Jesus was not born as the eternal Son of The Deity but was instead a man chosen and empowered by The Deity at a decisive moment—usually at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension.

Gnostic Adoptionism, unlike Docetism, affirms the real humanity of Jesus:

Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, <though> he arose from the dead. (Melchizedek from Nag Hammadi)

Gnostic Adoptionism is often contrasted with Docetism. Unlike Docetism, which denies Jesus’ real humanity, Gnostic Adoptionism affirms that he was fully human, receiving divine sonship through adoption. Jesus was a real man of flesh and blood—born, eating, drinking, circumcised, suffering, and rising from the dead—as the *Melchizedek* text declares: “they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten… that he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh.” This passage directly rebukes the Docetic claim that Christ merely *appeared* to be human. Gnostic Adoptionism maintains that divinity was conferred upon the man Jesus through election or descent of divine power—often at his baptism—rather than through preexistent essence. In this view, Jesus’ flesh was genuine and subject to suffering, but his moral perfection and obedience enabled him to be adopted by The Deity as Son. Far from denying his humanity, Gnostic Adoptionism exalts it as the vessel through which divine grace was manifested.

### The Nature of Adoptionism

Adoptionism is best described as a theology of relationship rather than of nature. It does not affirm the virgin birth, nor does it hold that Jesus was inherently divine by substance. Rather, it understands divinity as a status conferred by The Deity upon a worthy and righteous human being. In this view, Jesus was “adopted” as the Son of The Deity because of his perfect obedience and moral purity.

The roots of Adoptionism go back to Jewish Christianity, particularly the *Ebionites*. According to early patristic sources such as Epiphanius of Salamis, the Ebionites regarded Jesus as a man chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of The Deity. He was a prophet, Messiah, and righteous teacher, but not pre-existent or inherently divine. Their theology was grounded in the conviction that The Deity alone is eternal and unbegotten, while all other beings, including the Messiah, are temporal and created.

### The Ebionites and the Rejection of the Virgin Birth

The Ebionites provide the earliest and clearest example of Adoptionist belief within the historical record. They maintained that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary, a natural birth without miraculous conception. The virgin birth doctrine, which came to dominate later Christian orthodoxy, was entirely absent from their scriptures. The *Gospel of the Ebionites*, which combined elements of the Synoptic Gospels, began its narrative not with a birth story but with the baptism of Jesus.

In their gospel, the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism—“You are my Son, this day I have begotten you”—was taken literally as the moment when Jesus became the Son of The Deity. This baptismal adoption marked his elevation from a righteous man to the chosen Messiah. Their Christology was therefore moral and relational: Jesus’ perfection of conduct and complete submission to The Deity’s will merited his adoption.

The Ebionites also rejected the Apostle Paul, whom they viewed as an apostate from the Law. They insisted on the observance of Jewish commandments and rites, affirming continuity between Jesus’ teachings and the Torah. Their emphasis on voluntary poverty (reflected in their name *Ebionim*, “the poor ones”) highlighted their rejection of worldly power and wealth.

### Jesus was adopted at his baptism

Valentinian Gnostic Christology taught that the divine Savior, often identified as the Logos or Christ, descended upon the human Jesus at his baptism. One key passage frequently associated with early Adoptionist thought concerns what The Deity declared at that moment, for three different versions are preserved in the manuscripts. The Codex Bezae version of Luke 3:22 reads, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” a wording also echoed in Acts 13:32–33 and Hebrews 5:5. Many Christian writers of the second and third centuries, and even into the fourth and fifth, cited this form of the verse, sometimes struggling to reconcile it with emerging orthodoxy; Augustine, for example, accepted the wording but reinterpreted “today” as an eternal now. Bart Ehrman and others have suggested that later orthodox scribes altered the Lukan text to match Mark’s version—“You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased”—to counter Adoptionist readings that viewed the baptism as the moment of Jesus’ divine adoption.

### Theodotus of Byzantium and Valentinian Adoptionism

In the late 2nd century, Theodotus of Byzantium—described by Hippolytus of Rome as a Valentinian—became one of the most articulate proponents of Adoptionism. According to *Philosophumena* VII.xxiii, Theodotus taught that Jesus was born of a virgin according to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem but lived as an ordinary man distinguished by his piety and virtue. At his baptism in the Jordan, “the Christ” descended upon him in the likeness of a dove. The man Jesus thus received the anointing of divine power, but he did not become fully identified with The Deity until after his resurrection.

This teaching presents a distinct perspective from that of the *Gospel of Philip*. Theodotus taught that Jesus, though born of a woman, was a man upon whom the divine power descended at baptism, marking his adoption as the Son of The Deity. In contrast, the *Gospel of Philip* rejects both the virgin birth and the notion that the Holy Spirit—portrayed as a feminine power—conceived Jesus, declaring, “When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?” The two viewpoints therefore diverge sharply: Theodotus emphasizes divine adoption through descent of power upon a righteous man, while the *Gospel of Philip* denies any supernatural conception altogether, grounding Jesus’ origin in ordinary birth and his distinction in the undefiled nature of his obedience. Rather than harmonizing them, it is clear that they represent separate developments within early non-orthodox thought about how the divine related to the human in Jesus.

Despite their differences concerning Jesus’ birth, both the Gospel of Philip and Theodotus shared the core Adoptionist principle: that divine sonship was not innate but conferred through union with the divine power.

### The Rejection of Adoptionism and the Rise of Orthodoxy

By the late 3rd century, Adoptionism was officially declared heresy. The Synods of Antioch and later the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) defined the orthodox position that Jesus Christ was eternally begotten, “of one substance with the Father.” This formulation rejected the idea that Jesus became divine through moral elevation or divine choice. Instead, it affirmed that Jesus was divine by nature, not by adoption.

The Nicene doctrine established an ontological unity between Jesus and The Deity, forming the foundation of what became the Trinitarian creed. Yet, this marked a decisive departure from earlier Christian traditions that emphasized the moral and relational union between the human Jesus and The Deity. In suppressing Adoptionism, the Church also rejected the earlier Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus as a chosen servant of The Deity, in favor of a metaphysical view of eternal divinity.

### The Bogomils and the Later Survival of Adoptionism

Adoptionism did not disappear with Nicaea. It resurfaced centuries later among dualistic sects such as the *Bogomils* of medieval Bulgaria. Though primarily known for their dualism—dividing the cosmos between the good Creator and the evil maker of the physical world—the Bogomils also embraced an Adoptionist Christology. They denied that Jesus was eternally divine by nature, holding instead that he was a man upon whom divine grace descended. Unlike the corporeal view of the Pleroma held by earlier Valentinians, the Bogomils framed their Adoptionism within a dualistic cosmology that regarded matter as the creation of Satan.

According to their teachings, Jesus was identified with the angel Michael, the younger son of The Deity, who took on human form to liberate humanity. At his baptism in the Jordan, he was “elected” and received power to undo the covenant Adam had made with Satan. In their view, Jesus became the Son of The Deity through grace, not by nature—mirroring the Ebionite and Theodotian positions.

The Bogomils further rejected the doctrine of the virgin birth and the physical incarnation, seeing these as attempts to sanctify the material world, which they viewed as the domain of Satan. They interpreted the Logos not as a person but as the spoken word of The Deity—an expression of divine reason and wisdom manifested in the teachings of Christ. This rational and relational interpretation of divinity paralleled earlier Adoptionist currents, though framed within their dualistic cosmology.

### Conclusion

From the Ebionites to Theodotus and the Bogomils, Adoptionism represents a persistent thread of early Christian theology emphasizing the humanity of Jesus and the relational nature of divine sonship. The *Gospel of Philip* provides a Gnostic articulation of this same impulse, rejecting the literal virgin birth and affirming instead that Jesus’ divine sonship derived from his relationship to “another Father,” the true Power in Heaven.

This view upholds that Jesus’ union with The Deity was not biological or metaphysical but moral and volitional. It portrays divinity as something that can be conferred through righteousness and perfect obedience—a state that can be attained rather than innately possessed. In this light, Adoptionism was not merely a heresy but a profound affirmation of moral transformation: that a human being, through devotion and purity, could become one with the will of The Deity.

By redefining sonship as adoption rather than innate essence, Adoptionism preserved the transcendence of The Deity while maintaining the full humanity of Jesus. It stood as a testament to an earlier, more dynamic understanding of divine relationship—one in which the boundary between the human and the divine was not fixed by nature, but opened through grace.

How Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the immortality of the soul

 The Jehovah’s Witnesses have long presented themselves as the most consistent defenders of the belief that the soul is mortal. They denounce the idea of an immortal soul as a pagan doctrine inherited from Greek philosophy, and they claim to have restored the original biblical truth that man is wholly physical and dies completely. Yet when their doctrines are examined carefully, it becomes evident that they, in fact, teach the immortality of the soul under different names and in disguised form. Their system is filled with contradictions that prove their theology of death is not consistent with Scripture or even with their own stated principles.

---

**1. The nature of Adam**

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Adam was created mortal. They teach that Adam was created “perfect” and could have lived forever if he had not sinned. Yet the Bible nowhere says that Adam was created immortal or perfect. The record in Genesis simply declares that “The Deity saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). The text describes the whole creation as good in a *natural* sense, not in a spiritual or moral one. It does not single out Adam as being created in a state of moral perfection or incorruptibility. In Genesis 2:7, Adam is described as having become “a living soul” — not an immortal one. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the soul is mortal, as they claim, then Adam, being a living soul, must have been mortal by nature. But by denying his mortality, they in effect affirm that there was something immortal or undying in him before sin — which is precisely the doctrine of the immortality of the soul that they denounce in others. Their position thus contradicts itself: if Adam was not mortal, he was immortal; and if he was immortal, then death was not natural to him but an external punishment — an idea foreign to Scripture.

---

**2. The 144,000 as disembodied spirits**

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a group of 144,000 chosen ones are taken to heaven to live as spirit creatures with Christ. They claim that these individuals, after death, are resurrected not bodily but as spirits. This means they believe that the real person continues to exist in a different form after the body has died. Such a belief presupposes that there is something in man that survives death — precisely what they deny when they attack the traditional doctrine of the soul. If man ceases to exist entirely at death, then there is nothing left to be resurrected immediately as a spirit being. Yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses say these anointed ones are conscious, active, and ruling with Christ in heaven now. That is not a resurrection from nonexistence but a continuation of existence in another form — an implicit belief in an immortal principle within man.

Psalm 146:4 Psalm 78:39 For He remembered that they were but flesh, A spirit that passes away and does not come again

---

**3. The meaning of the resurrection**

The word “resurrection” in Scripture means a *rising again* — the reanimation and restoration of the body from death. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that resurrection involves a physical body. They say that the resurrection of the 144,000 is not bodily but spiritual, and that the resurrection of others in the earthly hope is a re-creation rather than a restoration. This destroys the biblical concept of resurrection and replaces it with a doctrine of replacement or transformation into a different being. If the resurrected person is not the same corporeal being who died, then there is no resurrection at all. Furthermore, the idea of a person continuing as a “spirit creature” after death assumes ongoing conscious existence apart from the body — again, a disguised form of belief in an immortal soul.

Daniel 12:2 1 Corinthians 15:53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality

This verse is referring to the body it makes more sense if it reads this corruptible body must pot on in corruption and this Mortal body must put on immortality

---

**4. The “anointed” and survival without a body**

The Witnesses claim that the 144,000 “anointed” die and are immediately resurrected as spirit creatures to live with Christ in heaven. But this claim implies survival without a body. It assumes that the person continues to exist as something distinct from the physical body and capable of consciousness without it. That is precisely the traditional definition of an immortal soul. If, as they also teach, death is the absence of existence, then no one could “go” anywhere or live in any form after death. Their doctrine of the anointed class therefore contradicts their own view of death as nonexistence.

This contradict simple Bible teaching Hebrews 11:39,40  2Corinthians 5:10 2Timothy 4:1

---

**5. Jesus’ resurrection as a spirit creature**

Jehovah’s Witnesses also claim that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature and not as a physical man. They insist that his human body was not raised but was dissolved or taken away by The Deity. This teaching denies that Jesus truly died, because if his spirit continued to live while his body was gone, then he did not experience real death — only bodily dissolution. Scripture teaches that the man who died is the man who was raised (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). To claim that the “spirit” of Jesus lived on while his body perished is to affirm the continued existence of a conscious being without a body — another admission of belief in the immortality of a soul-like essence. The Witnesses, in denying the bodily resurrection, have simply transferred the Platonic idea of the immortal soul to Jesus himself.

Jesus's body did not see corruption" is a core Christian belief based on biblical passages, primarily Acts 2:27 and 2:31, which cite Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:37

---

**6. Dualism disguised as materialism**

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses profess to reject dualism — the idea that man is composed of body and soul — their theology of heaven and the 144,000 makes a clear dualistic division between two substances: physical humans and spiritual creatures. The “anointed” are said to exist as spirits in heaven, while the rest of mankind remain physical on earth. This is not a mere difference of location but of *substance*. Thus, they have unwittingly introduced the very dualism they denounce.

---

**7. Platonism under another name**

Their teaching that the 144,000 live forever as non-material spirit beings is simply Platonism under another name. They reject the terminology of “immortal souls,” yet the concept is identical. Plato taught that the soul escapes the body and lives eternally in a higher realm. The Witnesses teach that the anointed escape their bodies and live eternally in heaven as spirits. They have merely exchanged Greek philosophical terms for Watchtower terminology, while retaining the same essence of doctrine.

---

**8. The contradiction of death and heavenly rule**

If, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, the dead are non-existent until the resurrection, then the anointed who have died cannot yet be ruling with Christ. Nonexistence cannot reign. Yet they teach that these ones are presently alive and conscious in heaven. This means that the dead continue to exist — a denial of their own doctrine that death is the cessation of being. The only way the 144,000 can reign now is if they survived death in some form — which is to teach that they have an immortal aspect.

---

**9. The corporeality of angels**

The Witnesses describe angels and “spirit creatures” as non-physical and immaterial. Yet the Scriptures present angels as corporeal beings who can appear, speak, and even eat (Genesis 18–19). If angels are corporeal, then to claim that resurrected humans become “spirit creatures like angels” is to admit that they, too, have bodies — not immaterial spirits. But the Witnesses deny this, teaching that spirit beings are formless energies. This contradiction shows that their entire conception of “spirit” is based on an unscriptural notion of immaterial existence — precisely what they accuse Christendom of believing.

---

**10. The mortality of Adam revisited**

Their denial of Adam’s mortality destroys their own doctrine of death. If Adam was not mortal, he was immortal by nature. To say that he “became mortal” through sin implies that he lost an original immortality — a contradiction of their claim that the soul is mortal and can die. It also makes death a punishment rather than a natural process of the body, even though Genesis describes mortality as inherent in man: “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19). Mortality was the natural condition from the beginning; Adam’s sin did not create mortality, it only made death inevitable for all his descendants. The Witnesses, in denying this, embrace the very error they claim to oppose.

---

**11. Two substances of being**

Finally, their teaching that the heavenly class lives forever as spirit beings while the earthly class lives forever as physical humans introduces a fundamental division of substance. The heavenly class are non-physical; the earthly class are physical. This distinction implies that the heavenly class possesses a kind of indestructible, non-corporeal existence that cannot die — in other words, an immortal soul. The distinction is not between two locations but between two modes of being, one physical and the other spiritual, which is the classic dualism they denounce.

---

In every major doctrine concerning life, death, and resurrection, the Jehovah’s Witnesses contradict their own claim that the soul is mortal. By denying the corporeal nature of resurrection, by affirming disembodied existence for the 144,000, and by teaching that Jesus himself was raised as a spirit creature, they have revived the very Greek dualism they pretend to have abolished. Their doctrine is not consistent materialism but disguised spiritualism — a teaching of the immortality of the soul under another name.