THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (Book, Carte, Teologie)

 

Preface

 

Motto
"A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the bigger it becomes."  Martin Luther

 

Presentation of the book THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

 

Greetings!

In this way, we announce the interested ones, that intend to publish this great book about some things less known in Christianity at the present time, about the trinity doctrine.

 

This study of the doctrine of the trinity started since 1991, comparing many translations of the Bible, in several languages, studying at the same time the history of religious dogmas and ideas related to this doctrine. Our disclosures could end the credibility of this doctrine. This will make the Bible much more intelligible, non-contradictory and harmonious, in the monotheistic doctrine of God. So this work is not directed against the Bible, but in the aid of understanding as easily as possible.

 

This is a must read: THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

 

Any collaboration on this is welcome and expect those interested to contact us.

We are looking for a sponsor or impresario to print this theological work in order to reach the benefit of as many readers of the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Bible, in other languages also.

Best regards to all,

The co-writer team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE GNOSTIC-PATRIPASSIAN CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

 

A book about: Gnostic-Patripassians, who they were, their school of thought, and the conspiracies they were engaged in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

 

The real background of the trinitarian doctrine

 

Here is the ancient Gnostic-Patripassian doctrine about God in a few words, directly from a primary source:

“The moment I thought about them, behold, the heavens opened, all the creature beneath the sky lit up, and the world shook. I was scared, and here I saw someone sitting next to me in the light. Looking, he seemed to be someone old. Then he changed his appearance to a young man. Not that there were more faces in front of me, but inside the light, there was a face with more faces. These faces were visible to each other, and the face had three faces.”

Apocryphon of John The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocryphon of John, is a second-century forgery, made by the Gnostic-Patripassian proto-Trinitarians.

 

How is the doctrine of the trinity interpreted today?

Wikipedia: Trinity "Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single "Being" who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit. Traditionally, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons", all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases", "share a single Divine essence, being, or nature."

Is this position really biblical or just a copy taken from apocryphal sources, which they made sound biblical? This theme is debated in this book.

 

We wrote this book in order to raise public awareness about the importance of a general revision of the Bible, coming out of the stereotypes that have been worked on so long.

As we see, the doctrine of the trinity was not invented at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but earlier. We must also mention that the doctrine of the trinity has a shorter form, the binitarian doctrine. This binitarian doctrine excludes the idea that the holy spirit is a part of the Godhead. They claim that only the Father and the Son are part of the Godhead. Therefore they cannot speak of Trinitarianism, but of Binitarianism.

 

 

 

Chapter 2

 

The argument of binitarians: why do they say that the holy spirit is not a third person of the Godhead?

 

They say that the holy spirit is of God, so "He" (God) has a mind, will, emotions and power expressed by or through his holy spirit. Is not a different, third person of God.

Let's see their argument of Acts 1:5, if this is a baptism with a "third heavenly person" or a "divine mind-will-emotions-power"? Compare with Acts 1:8, Acts 2:17,18,33. This is a good context. The Bible explain the Bible without human interpret.

Acts 1:5 "for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the holy spirit not many days from now."

Acts 1:8  "But you will receive power when the holy spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Acts 2:17,18,33 "“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my spirit, and they shall prophesy.

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the holy spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Note that "my spirit" means "the holy spirit", exactly as Lord Jesus said in Matthew 10:20:"For it is not you who speak, but the spirit of your Father speaking through you."

my spirit = the holy spirit = the spirit of your Father = God's spirit

See the entire context of the Bible, that is about God's Spirit, yes, God's Spirit want's us, not a "third person": Romans 8:11 "And if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his spirit that dwelleth in you."

Again the context: Rom 8:14 For whosoever are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Again: Rom 8:26 Likewise the spirit (of God, not a "3rd person") also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the spirit (of God, not a 3rd person) himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. 27 And he (God) that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the spirit (of God not a 3rd person) desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God.

Nowere a 3rd person.

Yes, God has a spirit. His spirit, the holy spirit. Their argument is plausible.

 

Chapter 3

 

Why the Bible doesn't say what the songs say?

 

It is true that the Bible speaks about God, the heavenly Father and Creator of all, about his Son and about His spirit, the holy spirit, however, if we read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, we find the testimony that there is only one God.

Here are some examples:

Exodus 20:1And God spoke all these words:

2“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3“You shall have no other gods before a me.”

Matthew 4:10: "Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the LORD (YHWH) your God, and serve him only. (quote from the Old Testament)

We see this from Exodus 20 and John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

1Corinthians 8:5-6: “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

James 2:19: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”

 

If this God were a trinity or a binity, we would have expected these texts to specify this clearly. But no mention for a “Trinity” or a “Binity” here.

 

Reading the Bible in any language, we will find one God and one Creator, no more. The Universe was created by God, The Creator alone, THROUGH the Son, not BY the Son (John 1:3), not with a second god and third god. We have here an engineer and a maker. All those working in factories know very well the difference.

 

But during the Christmas time, there is an old tradition in the Churces songs, which said that God became man, being born as Jesus. And if God was born, He had to die. The idea is very old, and is not of of present time.

For example, Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170-180), about the death of Christ, he writes thus:

"And so He was lifted up on a wood and He was given an inscription, to indicate Who was killed. Who was this? It's a hard thing to say, and one of the most frightening things to keep from saying. But listen, as you tremble before the face of the One to whom the earth shook. He who hanged the earth in his place was hanged. He who set the heavens in their place is fixed in one place. The One who posted all things fast is posted quickly on the wood. The Lord is insulted. God IS KILLED. The king of Israel is destroyed by an Israeli hand." (Peri Pascha — On the Pascha, 96)

 

Wow! Why the Bible doesn't say that?

John 3:16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The Death of Jesus

Mark 15:33At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). 

 

However, how did some Christians like Melito come to this radical conclusion that God the Creator of the world himself became man, died, and then rose from the death?

 

Chapter 4

 

A mysterious verse: “All the angels of God worship him”

 

Comparing manuscripts and evaluating playback variants, which sometimes occur in certain places (verses), is vital in the work of repositioning the Christian theology on the path followed by the early Christians.

 

The Epistle to Hebrews chapter 1 contains some elements that need to be discussed carefully:

We refer to a phrase from the Septuagint - a quote in verse 6 (“All the angels of God worship him”) - which in the ancient Hebrew text (the Masoretic text) does not exist at all. There is neither in the Samaritan Text (Pentateuch) nor in certain versions (revisions) of the Septuagint. We will not find this phrase in the Old Testament as translated by many good and well known authors

 

How we decide? How we will interpret the lack? A learned textual critic  wrote that in a cave near the Dead Sea, was found a manuscript in which we have something similar to the some Septuagint, but with polytheistic tendencies: Deuteronomy 32:43 "All the gods shall worship him." Nor did this phrase match. This manuscript near the Dead Sea also contained other texts added, which were not in the Masoretic Text, but neither in the Septuagint.

 

We have only two possibilities for interpretation:

Possibility A. The ancient Jewish text was measured (corrected in the negative sense) and so this phrase was removed from the text. If someone did so, the question arises, for what reason?

Possibility B. In the original Epistle to the Hebrews there was no verse 6, being added later by a copyist. Asking someone like this begs the question, for what reason?

 

What the Septuagint says: Septuagint, Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, May all the sons of God worship Him! Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people, strengthen for him all the angels of God! That He will avenge the blood of His sons and will avenge his enemies with vengeance, and those who hate Him will pay it and the Lord shall cleanse the land of His people "

 

The Masoretic text, Deuteronomy 32:43 says much less: "Rejoice over his nations, you his people, because he avenges the blood of his servants and he will take vengeance on his enemies. He shall make atonement for his land and for his people. "

 

We notice that the Septuagint text has been enriched and stylized.

A little about the Septuagint version:

A friend of mine met an Orthodox theologian and they discussed the Greek version of the Septuagint. To his surprise, he said that this version was not so good, so a review of it was needed. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184 - c. 253), also known as Origen Adamantius, was an early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian. He did Hexapla, a monumental work. For the most part, Hexapla consisted of the text of the Old Testament arranged on 6 parallel columns, as follows: (1) the Hebrew text; (2) the Hebrew text transliterated with Greek characters; (3) the Greek version of Aquila, (4) the Greek version of Symmachus; (5) Septuagint; (6) the Greek version of Theodotion.

 

Questions arise: Why did the Septuagint need so many revisions? And why wasn't it such a good version?

The Talmud says that once in the courtyard of the temple in Jerusalem, three versions of the Hebrew Scriptures have been found. After one of these Hebrew versions the Septuagint was translated. It is possible that this Hebrew version was the version of the ancestors of the Sadducees priests, who modified certain passages to support their doctrine. The other two Hebrew versions could have been of the ancestors of the Pharisees - the ancestor of so called Masoretic text and the Essenes version of the Death Sea Scrolls.

 

Other problems: The quotation from Hebrews 1:8,9 does not match the Masoretic Text. Indeed, it partially matches that of the Septuagint (verse 6 of Septuagint Ps 44: 6), but which one to choose? If we go into the hand of the Septuagint, only the verse in Hebrews 1: 8 and not verse 9 could be justified, so the text remains without cover.

 

The Septuagint, Psalm 44: 6,7 Your chair, God, is in the age of the age, the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom You loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy more than Thy companions.

 

The Masoretic text, Psalm 45:7,8 (for those who do not know, between LXX (Septuagint) and TM there is a difference of one chapter):

7Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

 

The Masoretic text speaks for itself in easy-to-understand language.

We should not be scared and hurt if, during this time, when knowledge seems to have exploded, reaching the peaks of the indescribable - as the Hope group sings - this is also right with the Bible, science showing impurities that have were added by the scribes to the original text.

 

It is obvious that those Christians from the first centuries of the Christian era, when they read the Septuagint, faced some problems. But because the epistle to the Jews was written to the Christian Jews before the demolition of the temple in Jerusalem (70 AD), this question arises: in what language it was written to them and what version was quoted?

 

Chapter 5

 

The second problem  

 

So we have a second problem. The first was with the lack of the phrase in the Masoretic Text: “All the angels of God worship him”.

 

If the author of the epistle to the Jews was a Hebrew, then we expect to have written to his brethren in their mother tongue and quoted from a Hebrew version, not from the Septuagint. But was a Hebrew? Yes! After reading the epistle we see that the author is very familiar with the Jewish environment in Judea and the Hebrew Scriptures, so the text itself is an asset, that the author was a Hebrew. But who?

 

The Epistle tells us that those in Italy greeted their Jewish brothers, and Timothy was released from prison by the authorities, so the author was someone who was in Italy at the time. From this we can conclude that both the author of the epistle and his companion were imprisoned because of their faith (Hebrews 13:23,24).

Saint Pantaenus died c. 200, was and a significant figure in the second century Christianity. Citing an old tradition inherited from Bishop Pantaneus, who collected the apostolic writings, this description fits best with the Paul-Timothy tandem, who have been together for a long time (Acts 16.1-3), according to Clement of Alexandria, although it was written by Paul, it was only translated into Greek by Luke. In 1931, a scroll was found called Chester Beatty. Roll number two contains eighty sheets, a collection of Paul’s letters alone, including this one. All this together, can be a guarantee that the apostle Paul is the author of the epistle to the Jews, as the ancestral tradition of Christians maintains.

 

If apostle Paul is the author of the epistle and he was from the Pharisees, he certainly had the Pharisee-approved version of the Hebrew Scriptures, the text on which the Masoretic Text was based. Thus in this text there were no mentions of two gods, as in the text of the Septuagint. What version would the apostle Paul have quoted to his Jewish brothers?

 

Let’s see the entire Psalm 45:

1For the Leader; upon Shoshannim; [a Psalm] of the sons of Korah. Maschil. A Song of loves.

2My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter;

I say: ‘My work is concerning a king’;

My tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

3Thou art fairer than the children of men;

Grace is poured upon thy lips;

Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

4Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one,

Thy glory and thy majesty.

5And in thy majesty prosper, ride on,

In behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness;

And let thy right hand teach thee tremendous things.

6Thine arrows are sharp—

The peoples fall under thee—

[They sink] into the heart of the king’s enemies.

7Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

9Myrrh, and aloes, and cassia are all thy garments;

Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad.

10Kings’ daughters are among thy favourites;

At thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

11‘Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear;

Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house;

12So shall the king desire thy beauty;

For he is thy lord; and do homage unto him.

13And, O daughter of Tyre, the richest of the people

Shall entreat thy favour with a gift.’

14All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace;

Her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold.

15She shall be led unto the king on richly woven stuff;

The virgins her companions in her train being brought unto thee.

16They shall be led with gladness and rejoicing;

They shall enter into the king’s palace.

17Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons,

Whom thou shalt make princes in all the land.

18I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations;

Therefore shall the peoples praise thee for ever and ever.

 

Let’s compare it with the Brenton version of the Septuagint:

1For the end, for alternate strains by the sons of Core; for instruction, a Song concerning the beloved. My heart has uttered a good matter: I declare my works to the king: my tongue is the pen of a quick writer.

2Thou art more beautiful than the sons of men: grace has been shed forth on thy lips: therefore God has blessed thee for ever.

3Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in thy comeliness, and in thy beauty;

4and bend thy bow, and prosper, and reign, because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall guide thee wonderfully.

5Thy weapons are sharpened, Mighty One, (the nations shall fall under thee) they are in the heart of the king's enemies.

6Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

7Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows.

8Myrrh, and stacte, and cassia are exhaled from thy garments, and out of the ivory palaces,

9with which kings' daughters have gladdened thee for thine honour: the queen stood by on thy right hand, clothed in vesture wrought with gold, and arrayed in divers colours.

10Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear; forget also thy people, and thy father's house.

11Because the king has desired thy beauty; for he is thy Lord.

12And the daughter of Tyre shall adore him with gifts; the rich of the people of the land shall supplicate thy favour.

13All her glory is that of the daughter of the king of Esebon, robed as she is in golden fringed garments,

14in embroidered clothing: virgins shall be brought to the king after her: her fellows shall be brought to thee.

15They shall be brought with gladness and exultation: they shall be led into the king's temple.

16Instead of thy fathers children are born to thee: thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.

17They shall make mention of thy name from generation to generation: therefore shall the nations give thanks to thee for ever, even for ever and ever.

 

As we see, the problem arises in verse 7, where a second God appears:

Masoretic Text 7Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever;

A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

8Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;

Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee

With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Brenton Septuagint 6Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness.

7Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy fellows.

 

 

Chapter 6

 

The great problem

 

But the big problem is just beginnig, and this is in Hebrews 1:10-12.

This is a quotation from Psalm 102 and if we put them in context, it is clear that they are addressed to YEHOWAH, the God of Israel and not to the Son.

 

See the context:

Young's Literal Translation

Do Not Hide Your Face From Me

1A Prayer of the afflicted when he is feeble, and before Jehovah poureth out his plaint. O Jehovah, hear my prayer, yea, my cry to Thee cometh.

2Hide not Thou Thy face from me, In a day of mine adversity, Incline unto me Thine ear, In the day I call, haste, answer me.

3For consumed in smoke have been my days, And my bones as a fire-brand have burned.

4Smitten as the herb, and withered, is my heart, For I have forgotten to eat my bread.

5From the voice of my sighing Hath my bone cleaved to my flesh.

6I have been like to a pelican of the wilderness, I have been as an owl of the dry places.

7I have watched, and I am As a bird alone on the roof.

8All the day mine enemies reproached me, Those mad at me have sworn against me.

9Because ashes as bread I have eaten, And my drink with weeping have mingled,

10From Thine indignation and Thy wrath, For Thou hast lifted me up, And dost cast me down.

11My days as a shadow [are] stretched out, And I — as the herb I am withered.

12And Thou, O Jehovah, to the age abidest, And Thy memorial to all generations.

13Thou — Thou risest — Thou pitiest Zion, For the time to favour her, For the appointed time hath come.

14For Thy servants have been pleased with her stones, And her dust they favour.

15And nations fear the name of Jehovah, And all kings of the earth Thine honour,

16For Jehovah hath builded Zion, He hath been seen in His honour,

17He turned unto the prayer of the destitute, And He hath not despised their prayer.

18This is written for a later generation, And the people created do praise Jah.

19For He hath looked From the high place of His sanctuary. Jehovah from heaven unto earth looked attentively,

20To hear the groan of the prisoner, To loose sons of death,

21To declare in Zion the name of Jehovah, And His praise in Jerusalem,

22In the peoples being gathered together, And the kingdoms — to serve Jehovah.

23He hath humbled in the way my power, He hath shortened my days.

24I say, ‘My God, take me not up in the midst of my days,’ Through all generations [are] Thine years.

25Beforetime the earth Thou didst found, And the work of Thy hands [are] the heavens.

26They — They perish, and Thou remainest, And all of them as a garment become old, As clothing Thou changest them, And they are changed.

27And Thou [art] the same, and Thine years are not finished.

28The sons of Thy servants do continue, And their seed before Thee is established!

 

The question is why the Son is called "God" in Hebrews 1:8 and the Creator in Hebrew 1:10, if he is not the God and the Creator from the Bible?

Some say that our Lord Jesus is called God at Hebrews 1:8 where it reads, "But of the Son He says, 'Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever.'" and the Creator in Hebrews 1:10 where it reads "And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;" but these things would be true, with only one essential condition, to have been thus formulated in the original epistle to the Hebrews.

 

But were they so? This question arises, because towards the end of the first century AD, there appeared some turbulent sects, with different strange ideas, that falsified the Holy Scriptures, in order to help their writings with these false renderings. Such a problem was the propagation of a triune god.

And they did their best to adjust the Scriptures to their idea.

 

Let's see how this idea sounds, in their doctrine:

“The moment I thought about them, behold, the heavens opened, all the creature beneath the sky lit up, and the world shook. I was scared and, here, I saw someone sitting next to me in the light. Looking, he seemed to be someone old. Then he changed his appearance to a young man. Not that there were more faces in front of me, but inside the light, there was a face with more faces. These faces were visible to each other, and the face had three faces.” Apocryphon of John

The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocryphon of John, is a second-century forgery, made by proto-Trinitarians.

 

We wrote this book in order to raise public awareness about the importance of a general revision of the Bible, coming out of the unfair stereotypes that have been worked on so far. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 7

 

How did they do that?

 

After the Gnostic proto-trinitarian party loses the battle in the Council of Antioch (267), that is, the Son's deification - because of the Scriptures in some Christian leaders hands were most still unchanged - they began the offensive of bringing the text of the Scriptures on their side, falsifying the text, where it was clearly against their conceptions.

 

What many fail to realize today is that some documents of the New Testament in some places was edited and revised to confirm the doctrines of the Gnostic branches. And not only this documents but also other Christian documents.

 

The noted Church Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quotes the Church Father Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria in the third century (Hist. Eccl., Bk. 4. 23), who reports that his own epistles had been tampered by the Gnostic party:

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts".

 

In the book The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, we find another proof, of what happened in that ancient time, quoting Gaius, presbyter of Rome in the second and first half of the third century: "Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed".

 

Here is the model followed by them: the Gnostic party so many copies did until they eclipsed with the multitude of copies, the true copies of the Scriptures, the forged copies being more accessible to the uninitiated public, than the authentic ones.

Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed errors were made by negligence, but also three intentional tricks were made.

 

About the tricks made in the text:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

Dr. F H The Scrivener text critic writes:

"In the second century, we see too many attempts to change the text of Scripture, some only recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that "this is no less true, though it sounds paradoxical that the worst mistakes the New Testament has ever been made were originally made within 100 years after the (New Testament) was made, and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers , and throughout the West, part of the Syrian Church used "inferior manuscripts. (FHA Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism).

Dr. FH Scrivener text critic noted two kind of scribes who altered the text: "recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that the first 100 years was the WORST TIME of the manuscripts.

Ernest Cadman Colwell, Which is the Best New Testament Text ?, p. 119: "The first two centuries witnessed a large number of (different text) variations known to scholars today. Most (different text) versions of New Testament manuscripts, I believe they did it consciously."

The testimony of Origen, third century: "It is a fact revealed today that there is a GREAT VARIETY among the manuscripts, either because of the carelessness of the scribes, or because of the outrageous daring of the people who write..." Origen, Contra Celsum

 

This rout was due to the fact that in the second century the Gnostic Christian rival groups reached a dozen of sects, each making their own canon and their own favorite text (Raoul Vaneigem, The Resistance to Christianity.The Heresies at the Origins of the18thCentury).

 

Chapter 8

 

The reconsideration

 

 

Some time ago, a textual critic from Hungary drew my attention, that in fact in Acts 16:7 there would be four textual variations, not three:

1. πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ Spirit of Jesus: Papyrus p72, Codex Sinaiticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Alexandrinus (A), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) the 6th century concealer, Codex Bezae (D), Cyrill of Alexandria

2. The Spirit of the Lord (unfortunately he did not give the source)

3. the Holy Spirit (unfortunately did not give the source)

4. πνεῦμα the spirit (Textus Receptus, Efrem the Syriac, Chrisostom).

 

It is not strange? The right version could be "the spirit" as in Acts 5:9, Acts 8:39, means an angel of God guides them as in Acts 8:29, Acts 10:19, Acts 11:12, Acts 16: 9. The spirit of Jesus is unic in all the Bible, we meet this just in Acts 16:7, and this is not the genuine version.

 

Some is now trying to minimize this facts and even by surprise, to reduce the number of variants. When we read again some sources, some uncomfortable information disappeared in the meantime. This is how somebody protect some doctrines today.

 

The most interesting thing is in the Vatican Codex. In a marginal note, someone scribe wrote on page 1512, next to Hebrews 1: 3, the text contains an interesting thing "Fool and knave, leave the old reading and don't change it!" - "ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει" which may suggest that unauthorized correcting was a recognized problem in scriptoriums. Could anyone get so upset if it was just a word change. It might have been more serious."

 

Therefore, we must be careful because Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6.

 

So let's see how the text sounds there:

JPS Tanakh 1917

Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

This verse is even clearer when we see the following context in verse 7:

JPS Tanakh 1917

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

 

What then is the explanation for the inconsistency with the text of Hebrews 1:8? Wasn't this text edited by the Gnostic trinitarian copyists who later copied the manuscripts? This is very possible. 

 

So it is very possible that in the original of Hebrews 1: 8 written in the first century there was also this ancient form, the original one:

"But of the Son He says, Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever'"  

Even so, it remains open that Jesus is the Creator:

10 and, 'Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work at thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle and they win be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years will never fail.'

 

Open yes, but not sure. Why? Because if we read the original of the Psalm 102:25-27 in the context, we learn that this text is addressed to the Father, not to the Son:

JPS Tanakh 1917 Psalm 102

1A Prayer of the afflicted, when he fainteth, and poureth out his complaint before the LORD.
2O LORD, hear my prayer,
And let my cry come unto Thee.
3Hide not Thy face from me in the day of my distress;
Incline Thine ear unto me;
In the day when I call answer me speedily.
4For my days are consumed like smoke,
And my bones are burned as a hearth.
5My heart is smitten like grass, and withered;
For I forget to eat my bread.
6By reason of the voice of my sighing
My bones cleave to my flesh.
7I am like a pelican of the wilderness;
I am become as an owl of the waste places.
8I watch, and am become
Like a sparrow that is alone upon the housetop.
9Mine enemies taunt me all the day;
They that are mad against me do curse by me.
10For I have eaten ashes like bread,
And mingled my drink with weeping,
11Because of Thine indignation and Thy wrath;
For Thou hast taken me up, and cast me away.
12My days are like a lengthening shadow;
And I am withered like grass.
13But Thou, O LORD, sittest enthroned for ever;
And Thy name is unto all generations.
14Thou wilt arise, and have compassion upon Zion;
For it is time to be gracious unto her, for the appointed time is come.
15For Thy servants take pleasure in her stones,
And love her dust.
16So the nations will fear the name of the LORD,
And all the kings of the earth Thy glory;
17When the LORD hath built up Zion,
When He hath appeared in His glory;
18When He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute,
And hath not despised their prayer.
19This shall be written for the generation to come;
And a people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.
20For He hath looked down from the height of His sanctuary;
From heaven did the LORD behold the earth;
21To hear the groaning of the prisoner;
To loose those that are appointed to death;
22That men may tell of the name of the LORD in Zion,
And His praise in Jerusalem;
23When the peoples are gathered together,
And the kingdoms, to serve the LORD.
24He weakened my strength in the way;
He shortened my days.
25I say: ‘O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days,
Thou whose years endure throughout all generations.
26Of old Thou didst lay the foundation of the earth;
And the heavens are the work of Thy hands.
27They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure;
Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment;
As a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall pass away;
28But Thou art the selfsame,
And Thy years shall have no end.
29The children of Thy servants shall dwell securely,
And their seed shall be established before Thee.’

 
If the trinitarians do not agree that it is addressed to the Father, tell us by what method they distinguish, when a text is addressed to the Father and when to the Messianic Son. The Jewish rabbis never believed that the Messiah would be the Creator of the Heaven and Earth.

Therefore, based on the firm testimonies of the Old Testament and the warnings of Christian writers from the 1st to the 4th centuries, as well as confirmations from the resources of the historical researchers, we can try the following reconstruction of the original text of the Hebrews chapter 1 from the first century, eliminating the inconsistency that many didn't notice.

 

Variant A: Either the Gnostic proto-trinitarians would have eliminated a connecting phrase, possible this "about God this"

 

Variant B: Either the Gnostic proto-trinitarians added a text that does not exist in Hebrews chapter I, possible this:

"'Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work at thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle and they win be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years will never fail.'

 

The ancient Hebrews chapter 1 if variant A is the correct one:

"Moffatt 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. 3 He, reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father'? Or again, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me'? 6 And further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.' 7 While he says of angels, 'Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,' 8 he says of the Son, 'from God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' — 10 and about God this, 'Thou didst found the earth at the beginning, O Lord, and the heavens are the work at thy hands; 11 they will perish, but thou remainest, they will all be worn out like a garment, 12 thou wilt roll them up like a mantle and they win be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years will never fail.' 13 To what angel did he ever say, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?"

 

The ancient Hebrews chapter 1 if variant B is the correct one:

 "Moffatt 1 Many were the forms and fashions in which God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these days at the end he has spoken to us by a Son — a Son whom he appointed heir of the universe, as it was by him that he created the world. 3 He, reflecting God's bright glory and stamped with God's own character, sustains the universe with his word of power; when he had secured our purification from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 and thus he is superior to the angels, as he has inherited a Name superior to theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my son, to-day have I become thy father'? Or again, 'I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me'? 6 And further, when introducing the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.' 7 While he says of angels, 'Who makes his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire,' 8 he says of the Son, 'from God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity: 9 thou hast loved justice and hated lawlessness, therefore God, thy God, has consecrated thee with the oil of rejoicing beyond thy comrades' — 10 11 12 13  To what angel did he ever say, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'? 14 Are not all angels merely spirits in the divine service, commissioned for the benefit of those who are to inherit salvation?"

 

So the answer to the question "Why is Jesus called "God" in Hebrews 1: 8 and Creator in Hebrews 1:10?" is: "We were fooled!" There were no such ideas in the original Epistle to the Hebrews!

It all comes down to the zeal of some to impose their ideas, shamelessly falsifying the Holy Scriptures.

 

These problems have troubled may, and some lost their faith, rejecting Jesus and returning to judaism. They noticed that someone really wanted to juggle. They said that the argument that the Son is the one invoked here in Psalm 102:25-27, even if the context makes no such difference, could not be accepted.

 

They are right. We are witnessing a crude and fanciful attempt to manipulate the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in order to identify the Son with God, the Creator himself.

 

 

Chapter 9

 

Why was this wanted?

 

 

Here's what we can find in the annals of history.

 

In their dispute with early Christians, the rabbis accused them of not being monotheistic, because they have two Gods (the Father and the Son, or even three with the Holy Spirit for some liked this as a third person), so they cannot be true believers.

 

Monotheist means those who believe in one God, as God commanded to Moses.

 

As a result of this argument, some of the Christians returned to Judaism.

Others have fallen to the other extreme, in Gnosticism (so called „secret knowledge and teachings”), claiming that the Father and the Son are one person, that is, God the Father, the Creator, became incarnate as the son of Mary and then died on the cross, as we read from Melito's testimony from Sardis.

 

The Christian leaders at that time opposed this interpretation and excommunicated those who believed this, but the excommunication did not back down but went counter-offensive, trying to bring Scripture to their side, that is, falsifying it. First, convictions were made locally, by the bishops of the assemblies, then when things got worse, a general council was convened, in Antioch in 267, which also condemned this teaching.

 

They were named „Patripassians” because they believed that the Father (Pater) suffered (passionum) on the cross, being incarnated as the son of Mary. So, they said, the Father was born as a Son, thus being the Son of God, but in fact, the Father and the Son are the same being, in heaven existing as the Father and on earth existing as the Son.

 

Who was the first exponent of this heretical doctrine? We don't know for sure. Certainly not Melito from Sardes, there were some leaders of this doctrinal group before him. Another leader of this group was Noetus from Smyrna, some said it was the old heresy of Noetus.

Originally from Ephesus, but known as "of Smyrna", he is known for his later residence.

In order to justify this idea, some were inspired by Gnosticism.

 

In ancient times, people began to worship the beings they imagined, dressed in the form of humans, animals, a mixture between this two, or even plants. But around 550 BC, the rise of the highly influential religion of Greek mystery philosophy began.

 

Pythagoras (about 550 B.C.) may have been the founder of Greek philosophy and mystery religion. Certainly he was the earliest of the most influential Greek religious philosopher.

Pythagoras spent years studying with Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hindu religionists. When he finally returned to Greece , he formed a religious organization based on his knowledge gained in those foreign lands. He promoted a numerical symbolism in which he taught that God is three in number. More specifically, the Pythagoreans actually worshiped an equilateral triangle composed of dots.

 

The number three stands for "Trinity and extension of Godhead."

 

Aristotle said over 300 years before Christ: 

"All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, and the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the trinity."

So it appears that this "holy" number three used to "worship the gods" in unity came down from Babylon through Egypt and India , and through the extremely influential Pythagoras to the ancient Greek philosophy/mystery religion and even to Plato himself.

 

Pythagoreanism is a term used for the esoteric and metapsihical beliefs held by Phytagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, a main inspirational source for Plato and platonism. 

 

The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

"For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the trinity [Greek trias; English = "trinity"]. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods." ("Holy" Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book I, 1)

 

"Enclosing the greater area with the smallest perimeter, the triangle, derived from the vesica piscis, the Triad was considered by the Pythagoreans as the most beautiful number, as it is the only number to equal the sum of all the terms below it, and the only number whose sum with those below equals their product."

 

It is difficult to find any reputable reference work that does not acknowledge the post-Biblical origin of the trinity doctrine. The main problem with the trinity doctrine is the dogmatism, elitism and judgementalism that customarily accompanies it. This is another evidence of the fragility of its foundation. Were it clearly taught in Scripture, there would be no need for authoritarian imposition of the teaching and heavy pressure to submit to it.

 

Who imported and imposed this concept of "mystery" in Christianity? The Gnostics.

 

According to Wikipedia, Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God.

The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable Supreme Being that embodies good. In order to free oneself from the inferior material world, one needs gnosis, or esoteric spiritual knowledge available through direct experience or knowledge (gnosis) of (this unknowable) God. Within the sects of gnosticism, however, only the pneumatics or psychics obtain gnosis; the hylic or Somatics, though human, are doomed.

Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. Gnosticism may have been earlier than the First Century, thus predating Jesus Christ.

 

In the gnostic book of The First Thought which is in Three Forms (or The Three Forms of the First Thought, in original The Trimorphic Protennoia) appears to have been rewritten at some point to incorporate Sethian gnostic beliefs, when originally it was a treatise from another Gnostic sect. Unusually, the text is in the form of an explanation of the nature of cosmology, creation, and a docetic view of Jesus, in the first person. That is, the text is written as if the writer is God, the three-fold first thought. Like most Gnostic writing, the text is extremely mystical, more so for being in the first person.  Like the more familiar gnostic book The Apocryphon of John, to which it is similar, it is thought to be from the mid-second century.

 

What happened at the Synod (Council) of Antioch from 268?

 

Before this Synod, some so called Gnostic Christians from the first and second century AD, have tried to translate pagan philosophical ideas such as the Pythagorean-platonic "Trinity" in Christian words. Some proposed a modalistic Trinity (one being in three revelation), others proposed a trimorphic Trinity (three differing forms in one being) and others a mix between this two.

 

Bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, a supporter of modalistic Trinity (III-IV century) stated: "Valentinus the heresiarch was the first to invented this in his 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."

Valentinus (also spelled Valentinius; c. AD 100 – c. 160) was the best known and, for a time, most successful early Christian gnostic theologian. He founded his school in Rome. According to Tertullian, Valentinus was a candidate for bishop but started his own group when another was chosen.

Valentinus produced a variety of writings, but only fragments survive, largely those embedded in refuted quotations in the works of his opponents, not enough to reconstruct his system except in broad outline. His doctrine is known only in the developed and modified form given to it by his disciples. He taught that there were three kinds of people, the spiritual, psychical, and material; and that only those of a spiritual nature received the gnosis (knowledge) that allowed them to return to the divine Pleroma, while those of a psychic nature (ordinary Christians) would attain a lesser or uncertain form of salvation, and that those of a material nature were doomed to perish.

Valentinus had a large following, the Valentinians. It later divided into an Eastern and a Western, or Italian, branch. The Marcosians belonged to the Western branch.

Around 268 bishop Paul of Samosate proposed a view which term - were identical to that proposed later around 325 by Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria, supporters of the trimorphic Trinity.

But the Synod of Antioch rejected the word (probably for the context) and deposed the bishop:

"Ironically, the synod that deposed Paul of Samosate would reject the term homoousios (consubstantial) by which he designated the identity of God and the Christ; this was the same quality that the Church would impose in the Fourth Century as the only trinitary truth."

The problem with this word homoousios (consubstantial) is the trinitarian oneness context in which this term was proposed, by the trinitarian fractions. And this context is a non-Biblical view.

 

In 315 emperor Constantine the so called Great, took with force the Churches of heretics and this act forced their bishops to leave or enter in that party of the Church in which his mother profess. In 316 he started o crusade against those who opposed this party's policy. And this party was Trinitarian and contributed to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity. Certainly this doctrine does not come from the Bible, but from foreign sources.

 

Remember the Gnostic-trinitarian doctrine about God in a few words, directly from a primary source:

“The moment I thought about them, behold, the heavens opened, all the creature beneath the sky lit up, and the world shook. I was scared and, here, I saw someone sitting next to me in the light. Looking, he seemed to be someone old. Then he changed his appearance to a young man. Not that there were more faces in front of me, but inside the light, there was a face with more faces. These faces were visible to each other, and the face had three faces.” Apocryphon of John

The Secret Book of John, also called the Apocryphon of John, is a second-century forgery, made by the Gnostic proto-trinitarians.

 

Chapter 10

 

The leaders of the Patripassian spiritual rebellion

 

Some argue that Noetus of Smyrna was the initiator of this teaching around 190 ("called the old heresy of Noetus of Smyrna"). This is wrong, because there is a record in a book by Justin Martyr (who died around 165) that in his years there were people who argued that the Father is also the Son (First apology (63, in Richardson, 1970). : 284) 85)). This may justify the assertion of the second century that this heretical teaching appeared around 115 under the leadership of Cerdo the Syrian, as Tertullian argued in Carthage.

 

Cerdo the Syrian being from Syria, it seems that the outbreak of this heresy started from there. Through Cerdo, he reached Marcion of Sinope, a merchant, because Marcion of Sinope, was Cerdo's apprentice, and this heretic flooded the Christianity with this teaching.

 

Of course, later this teaching has already been "cleansed" by the anti-Semitism of Cerdo and Marcion, since in the years leading up to Marcion's death, some of his disciples rebelled against some of his teachings and revised and refined them, but not enough. They still believed that God was born and God died. It is said that even Marcion cooled down before his death and apologized to the church, but in vain because the church refused his request. This happened because although revised, the teaching was still heretical. So Marcion had to build a parallel church, which has expanded greatly and increased in number, negatively influencing the apostolic churches. Noetus and others may have taken the doctrine from this movement.

 

So the Patripassian party was older than Sabellius, Noetus, Praxeas and Melito and other known leaders of this view - they just promoted it.

 

The Gnostic origin of the Patripassians

 

But where did Cerdo Syrian's christology come from? What was the situation of the primary church at the beginning of the second century, in the Middle East? If we read chapters two and three of the Book of Revelation, we see that in some churches, the waters were quite murky. The Christian historian Hegesippus of the century (c. 110 - c. April 7, 180 AD) tells us about the origin of the sectarian groups of the second century, linking them with a certain Thebulis, a former candidate for the office of bishop of Jerusalem. Being elected another, he undermined the authority of the church, teaching his theses, which were taken from the patrimony of the first century Gnostic sects:

 “Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians.”

(Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church.)

So the chain linking Patripassians to the heretical groups of the 1st and 2nd centuries is obvious: Thebulis - Cerdo - Marcion - Noetus – Sabellius.
If Thebulis is the founder of the Ebionites, it means that he was the first to interpret Christology differently than the primary church. The Ebionites - a Judeo-Christian group - were the first heretical sect, excommunicated by the apostolic church around 130, because they were preaching another Christology.

In the opinion of the Ebionites, the Son of God did not come from heaven, but was a man, chosen by God for the virtues he had and who was adopted by God as his son, when he was baptized in the Jordan River. This thesis opened the battle of Christologies: Who was the Son in fact?

All the sects from the 1st to the 2nd century had something in common, that "Someone" became the Son of God. It was Thebulis' thesis. Only he saw in that one a man, while Noetus saw God in that Someone. The root was common, only the branches differed.

 

What did Noetus' old heresy say?

 

Christ is nothing more than the revelation of the one God, who proclaimed himself the Father, after which he proclaimed himself as the Son of man, that is the same person, but who declared himself in another form of expression (hence the term "Modalism"). Therefore, according to Noetus, it can also be said that in the Son, the Father himself suffered on the cross because he was the same person, but under a different name (hence "Patripasianism").

In his book "Against Noetus," Hippolytus (c. 203) wrote against Noetus' teachings.

Noetus's excommunication

After the Christian superiors of Smyrna took the doctrines and examined is, he was excommunicated. Noetus said in defense: "What evil I does, because if I glorifies Christ? ... So if it is recognized that Christ is God, He is the Father Himself, yet He is true God, and Christ is a sufferer, being therefore, the Father who suffered, because He was the Father Himself."
The disciple of Noetus, Cleomene, continued the teachings of his master: God is as an invisible figure and as a visible figure, as an invisible figure is the Father and as a visible figure is the Son. Another well-known followers of Patripassianism (Modalism), from the same time is Praxeas from Carthage, and later Sabellius of Pentapolis.