Oneness Martyrs
yhclifto (yhclifto@Oakland.edu)
Sat, 17 May 1997 16:43:08 -0500 (EDT)
> >At 04:00 PM 5/14/97 +0200, you wrote:
> >Polycarp was not Oneness. Read "Foxes Book of Martyers".
I am confused as what Fox would know that we don't. I can find nothing in
the letter of Polycarp that suggests he was not Oneness, and since most of
the writtings of the early second century seem (at least on first reading
to be Oneness I cannot see a reason to classify Polycarp as an avocate of
either multiple Gods or a multy person (hypostyses in Greek God.)
Irrenaeus of Lyon (who claimed to be Polycarp's student) made the
statement "What is visible about the Father is the Son and what is
Invisible about the Son is the Father." which does not imply two persons
or three persons in any sense that I can see (I may be mistaken Irrenaeus
scholars are welcome to write in their contrary opinions.)
I am also aware that the bishop of Lyones may have falsified or exagerated
his relation to Polycarp merely to establish himself as an interlectual
successor of the Apostle John (this is my own feeling from reading the
books of Irrenaeus I am not making a claim that I'm up to date on the
scholar ship on the subject.
In his book "Oneness and Trinity" David K. Bernard also found no conflict
between our belifs and the writtings of Polycarp.
I do know that Fox is condidered a very biased source by historians and
even when discussing the 16th cenutry events recorded only in Fox's book
the use of the document is contervertial because his only purpose seems to
be the persaution of the reader to his point of view. Since he was
without conterversy anti-Oneness I would tend to fear he would Polycarp's
view to suit his.
I question is this. i have at home "the Letter of Polycarp" and
Eusuebius' history of the early church, and I have ready access to the
writtings of Irrenaeus through the library, but what documents are used by
Fox to make the claim Polycarp was not Oneness?
Just asking,
"the Truth shall make you free" John 8:32
Yeaton Clifton