Paraqlita Again: Comments from CLEMENT and TERTULLIAN

Pre-Nicene Writers circa 200 AD describe the PARAQLITA found in John's Gospels and First Epistle as HOLY SPIRIT... contradistinct from The REDEEMER+, Y'SHUA+ HA MASCHIYACH.

The erroneous translation sponsored and supported by the Netzarim - Hebrew Roots camp --- called by some as the "golden, historic, and best" Aramaic-English translation --- is indeed a notable historic debacle... perhaps being the worst possible translation available. The befuddled labeling of "Paraqlita" as the "REDEEMER+" is just one of many confusions in that translation.

Here is how Christian Apologists wrote about Paraclete, around the year 200 A.D.... and keep in mind, the Christian world was unified until after the Council of Nicea (c. 325 AD)... including the Aramaic-speaking (and writing) Brethren, such as Ephraem the Syrian. ( See blog entitled: Paraqlita... Paraclete... Paraqleeta , 12-26-2011).

CLEMENT of ALEXANDRIA (c. 150-200 )

ANF VOL 2 pg 571 FRAGMENTS, “First Epistle of Peter” translated by Cassiodorus

 

Clement of Alexandria was the head of the catechetical school at Alexandria. His most famous pupil was Origen. Clement was considered a "most learn-ed" one in the book of the Hebrews and Greeks. [ David Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, pg. 168: see References at end of blog.]

The old things which were done by the prophets and escape the observation of most, are now revealed to you by the evangelists.

“For to you,” he [ the Apostle Peter ] says, “they are manifested by the Holy Spirit, who was sent;” [ 1 Peter 1:12 ] that is the Paraclete, of whom the Lord said, “If I+ go not away, He will not come.”  [John 16:7]

“Unto whom,” it is said, “the angels desire to look;” not the apostate angels, as most suspect, but, what is a divine truth, angels who desire to obtain the advantage of that perfection.

“By precious blood,” he says, “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

Here he touches on the ancient Levitical and sacerdotal celebrations;

but means a soul pure through righteousness which is offered to God.

“Verily foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Inasmuch as He was foreknown before every creature, because He was Christ.

Chapter III Comments on the First Epistle of John Pg 575

Chapter 2:1. “And if any man sin,” he says, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.” For so the Lord is an advocate with the Father for us. So also is there, an advocate, whom, after His+ assumption, HE+ vouchsafed to send.

Pg 576

Verse 22. “A liar” and “an antichrist, who denieth that Jesus is the

Christ.” For Jesus, Savior and Redeemer+, is also Christ the King.

<(((><

And now, PARACLETE ( PARAQLITA) from Tertullian, c. 210:

TERTULLIAN ANF vol 3 , Part 2, chapter 8 and 9 , pg. 603-604,

“Against Praxeas”

Septimius Tertullian (c. 160-240) , presbyter in the Church at Carthage, North Africa, wrote numerous  apologies, works against hereitcs, and exhortations to other Christians. ( pg. 639, Bercot's Dictionary. See References. ) 

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, “I am in the Father;” and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.”

This will be the prolation [i.e., extension, never disconnected from the source, /  SrJH], taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him.

For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are probolai>, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed.

I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring.

Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God.

Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son — two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones.

Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three.

Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun.

Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties.

In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy.

CHAPTER 9

THE CATHOLIC [ i.e. universal, not Roman / SrJH ] RULE OF FAITH EXPOUNDED IN SOME OF ITS POINTS. ESPECIALLY IN THE UNCONFUSED DISTINCTION OF THE SEVERAL PERSONS OF THE BLESSED TRINITY

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said.

Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other.

This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the SON+, and the Spirit.

I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that HE+ is different, but by distinction; because THE FATHER is not the same as the SON+, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being.

For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.”

Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.

Happily the Lord Himself+ employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead);

for HE+ says, “I+ will pray the Father, and HE shall send you another Comforter.... even the Spirit of truth,”  [John 14:16, 17] thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself+, even as we say that the SON+ is also distinct from THE FATHER; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the SON+, by reason of the order observed in the Economy.

Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?

For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate.

“Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.”

<(((><

>>> REFERENCES for Quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF)

NOTE: Material is from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volumes 1-10,  American Edition ( a reprint of Christian Literature Publishing Co. 1886), 2nd printing 1995, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA. ISBN 1-56563-087-4

Some supplemental information and dates are from: David W. Bercot, editor, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998. ISBN 978-1-56563-870-9

Digital Copy from: The Master Christian Library Version 8 CD-ROM 2000 Ages Softward, Rio, WI  www.ageslibrary.com

NOTE: This Digital Copy of the ANF does NOT contain any Introductory Notes from the translators and editors, no footnotes, and no elucidations and comments at the end of the books, although these helpful items are contained in the hard copy listed above.

~  ~  ~

NOTE: Comments in green are from the Order of the GOOD SHEPHERD+; extra words in black are in the text from the editors. Color added to pronouns, etc., for clarity.