[Andrzej Kosela]

W filozofii neoplatońskiej kolejne hipostazy są coraz niższymi, coraz mniej doskonałymi poziomami, "światami".

Ale wszystko wypływa, emanuje z Jedni. Jednia obejmuje wszystko i jest wszystkim.

W Trójcy Świętej zróżnicowania takiego nie widać, są to jedynie 3 różne "oblicza" Boga .

Tutaj wszystko wypływa z Boga Ojca, bedącego odpowiednikiem Jedni platońskiej.
Sama koncepcja Trójcy Świętej wywodzi się z filozofii pogańskiej. Już filozofowie żydowscy w Aleksandrii łączący judaizm z platonizmem otworzyli drogę do przyszłych spekulacji wokół tego tematu dla chrześcijan. Proces ten zaczął się przynajmniej od czasów pierwszych Saduceuszy i Septuaginty.

Filon napisał w De Opificio:
"The Absolute Being, the Father, who had begotten all things, gave an especial grace to the Archangel and First-born Logos (Word), that standing between, He might sever the creature from the Creator. The same is ever the Intercessor for the dying mortal before the immortal God, and the Ambassador and the Ruler to the subject. He is neither without beginning of days, as God is, nor is He begotten, as we are, but is something between these extremes, being connected with both."



Early Trinitarian History

According to Roman Catholic sources, the term trinity, in relation to the Godhead, did not come until the late second/early third century.

Yet, the idea of the trinity was apparently voiced by the heretic Montanus and developed by a famous Gnostic heretic named Valentinus in the mid-2nd Century.

One of the so-called Montanist Oracles, spoken by Montanus was:

"I am the Father and the Son and the Paraclete." (Didymus, De trinitate iii. 41. 1.) (Assembled in P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 34-105, by Bates College, Lewston (Maine) http://abacus.bates.edu/Faculty/Philosop...anism.html 01/31/06).

This is one of the first references to a trinitarian view of the Godhead (the other earliest one was from the heretic Valentinus--it is unclear which was first). The paraclete is a term used to signify the Holy Spirit (it is from the Greek term parakletos).

Eusebius records (Eusebius. Church History, Book V, Chapters 18-19) that church leaders in Asia Minor and Antioch, such as Apollonius of Ephesus, that Serapion of Antioch, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Thraseas of Eumenia opposed the Montantist heresies (Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Thraseas of Eumenia were Quartodecimans, and Apollonius likely was as well). However, Roman Bishops would not renounce the Montantist heresy until sometime in the third century, and that after Rome accepted certain Montanus beliefs (see Montanists in The Catholic Encyclopedia)!

Here is what it is recorded that a one-time Catholic bishop named Marcellus of Ancyra wrote on the nature of God around the middle of the fourth century,

Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God...These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato (Source: Logan A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95 ).

Valentinus also wrote this in the heretical 'Gospel of Truth',

The Father uncovers his bosom, which is the Holy Spirit, revealing his secret. His secret is his Son! (Valentinus. Gospel of Truth. Verse 17. English translation by Patterson Brown).

Hence Valentinus is the earliest known professing Christian writer to make clear trinitarian claims (though he, himself, did not come up with the term trinity). It also should be noted that Valentinus was denounced by Polycarp of Asia Minor, when Polycarp visited Rome as a heretic (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4) and is considered to have been a heretic by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, most Protestants, and those in the Churches of God.

Furthermore, there were other views of the "trinity" around this time. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

Monarchians...Heretics of the second and third centuries...All Christians hold the unity (monarchia) of God as a fundamental doctrine. By the Patripassians this first principle was used to deny the Trinity, and they are with some reason called Monarchians. But the Adoptionists, or Dynamists, have no claim to the title, for they did not start from the monarchy of God, and their error is strictly Christological...The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians (Chapman J. Transcribed by Anthony A. Killeen. Monarchians. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

However, it is not just those who accepted the monarchianism form of the trinity who were heretics.

Jak widzisz pierwszymi którzy uznawali Trójcę Świętą byli "heretycy". Najbardziej znany wsród nich to Walentyn gnostyk, który z całą pewnością głosił trzy hipostazy, które wywodziły się z pogańskiej filozofii. On sam mówił iż całą swoją doktrynę tajemną odziedziczył po niejakim Theudas'ie, który z kolei miał być uczniem samego Pawła z Tarsu. Ile w tym prawdy? Dziś chyba trudno to orzec, ale Paweł przez wielu badaczy i historyków uważany jest za pierwszego chrześcijańskiego gnostyka.

co Ty możesz wiedzieć o Porfiriuszu czy Jamblichu i ich wysublimowanej wysokiej filozofii.

He he... Skoro ty tyle o niej wiesz, to poprzyj swoje słowa merytorycznymi argumentami. :] Czekam na dowód, że Jamblich był monoteistą .

Jamblich tak jak inni platonicy uznawał Jednię za najwyższą zasadę. Jego system to system monistyczny tak samo jak Plotyna czy Proklosa. Bogowie Jamblicha to jedynie byty podrzędne, które można by porównać do chrześcijańskich aniołów.

I dalej:

Still, the treatise [Theurgia, or On the Egyptian Mysteries] certainly originated from his school, and in its systematic attempt to give a speculative justification of the polytheistic cult practices of the day, it marks a turning-point in the history of thought where Iamblichus stood.

Po pierwsze to nie mamy pewności kto napisał Teurgię. Mamy więcej pewności, że pierwszą część napisał Porfiriusz. Ale już odpowiedz niejakiego Abammon'a stoi pod znakiem zapytania. Osobiście śmiem wątpić czy był to Jamblich, lecz nawet Teurgia prezentuje MONISTYCZNY
obraz świata jak np.

Hence there may be perceived the complete joining to gather into one of the first and last races (the gods and souls) through the intermediates (the dæmons and half-gods), and the entire sameness of nature, alike equally in Substance, and also alike in Power and Energy.

i komentarz:
This distinction of principles is noted in the Chaldaean Oracles. Pythagoras indicates the same by the terms monad, duad, triad; Plato by peras, apeiron, and mikton; Damaskios by the One, the many, and the union. Another version of the Oracles in place of "Substance" has Father, and for "energy" Mind or Reason.

We will, therefore, take up in place of this subject, the matter in relation to the present opinion, about which thou seemest to be in doubt. For thou hast proposed this question: "If only the gods are incorporeal, how shall the Sun, the Moon, and the luminaries visible in the sky, be accounted as gods?"
We reply: That they are not encompassed by the bodies, but that on the contrary, they encompass the bodies with their own divine lives and energies; also that they are not converted to the body, but possess the body which has been converted to the divine cause; and that the body does not interfere with their spiritual and incorporeal completeness, nor occasion any obstacle to it by intervening. hence it does not even require more attention, but follows (the divinities) after a manner spontaneously, and by its own motion, not needing a self-operating superintendence, but urging on by itself uniformly by the leading of the gods upward toward the One.

Thy next question raises a difficulty in another form "How is it that some of these gods are givers of good and others bring evil?"
This conjecture is taken from the casters of nativities, but it falls short of actual fact in every particular. For they all are not only good, but in like manner, also the causes and authors of benefits, and they likewise all revolve (in their orbits) with reference simply to the One God, according to the beautiful and good alone.

Besides, the non-material and incorporeal essence, being neither parted by spaces nor by subject-bodies, nor marked off by delineations into separate parts, comes together at once, and coalesces into an absolute identity. The issuing forth of all from the One, the returning again into the One, and the absolute rule of the One in everything effect the communion of the gods themselves in the Cosmic world, with those that pre-exist in the realm of Mind.