Bible writers teach monotheism and identify the Father as the one God

[LionHeart777]

“…He [Jesus] endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, **‘And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ **yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.” (newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (8/ 31/ 09, accessed) (Emphasis mine)

I think that he might be paraphrasing or summarizing, although I’m not sure. He includes the angel of God which I suspect comes from the verse which you referenced but it appears to me as though ( especially if you reread the passage I cite in it’s entirety) the angel of God is God according to St. Justin. I see a reference to these verses as well:

"…And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

("http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 3&version=KJV)
(accessed 9/ 1/ 09)

“’…the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob…,’” [1] is God correct? According to St. Justin, that is the Son speaking those words (see the original passage.)

[1] see above source for St. Justin Martyr

 

[Poetess_Kera]

I’m through with my visits here, but I must say, you go to great lengths to cover up your heresies.

 

[Dan_Parker]

“…He [Jesus] endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, **‘And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ **yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.” (newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (8/ 31/ 09, accessed) (Emphasis mine)

I think that he might be paraphrasing or summarizing, although I’m not sure. He includes the angel of God which I suspect comes from the verse which you referenced but it appears to me as though ( especially if you reread the passage I cite in it’s entirety) the angel of God is God according to St. Justin. I see a reference to these verses as well:

"…And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

("http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus 3&version=KJV)
(accessed 9/ 1/ 09)

“’…the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob…,’” [1] is God correct? According to St. Justin, that is the Son speaking those words (see the original passage.)

[1] see above source for St. Justin Martyr

You may wish to consider the following:
A. Lukyn Williams, D. D., in his "Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho. Translation, Introduction, and Notes " (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; N.Y. & Toronto: The MacMillan Co.; 1930) 301 pages. says regarding theos as applied to Christ:

“In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos *. J[ustin] reserves the latter “the God”] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3.” Page 122.

And on page 124: “Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God.”

Consider what Joseph Priestly wrote on Justin, this link is from google books online:
In some part of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, one might imagine that Justin had been a Gnostic, and Trypho a Unitarian Christian. Trypho says, " Prove to me first that there is another God besides the maker of all things."* Justin answered, " I will endeavour to shew you, from the Scriptures, that there is another God and Lord, and one who is so called, besides the maker of all things." This is precisely what a Gnostic would have said. But he proceeds to speak of this second god as the messenger of the true God, which the Gnostics would not have done. " He is also," says he, " called an angel, on account of his informing men of what he that made all things, above whom there is no God, wills that he should inform them."

I would also like to add a comment that I don’t consider anything but the bible inspired and do see a gradual change from the 2nd century onward until the Trinity is fully articulated centuries later. I don’t claim Justin had the same exact theology as did the apostles, but he did say things that later Catholic theologians would take issue with or certain work hard to “clarify.”

Dan*

 

[LionHeart777]

You may wish to consider the following:
A. Lukyn Williams, D. D., in his "Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho. Translation, Introduction, and Notes " (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; N.Y. & Toronto: The MacMillan Co.; 1930) 301 pages. says regarding theos as applied to Christ:

"In each case [where Justin refers theos to Christ,] theos not ho theos *. J[ustin] reserves the latter "the God"] for the Supreme God, except in lvi. 10, where the article [anaphorically] marks the God of which the narrative is speaking, and so in lx. 3." Page 122.

And on page 124: "Observe that throughout this chapter J[ustin] is insisting, (a) that the Angel is not the Supreme God, (b) and yet is called God."

Consider what Joseph Priestly wrote on Justin, this link is from google books online:

In some part of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, one might imagine that Justin had been a Gnostic, and Trypho a Unitarian Christian. Trypho says, " Prove to me first that there is another God besides the maker of all things."* Justin answered, " I will endeavour to shew you, from the Scriptures, that there is another God and Lord, and one who is so called, besides the maker of all things." This is precisely what a Gnostic would have said. But he proceeds to speak of this second god as the messenger of the true God, which the Gnostics would not have done. " He is also," says he, " called an angel, on account of his informing men of what he that made all things, above whom there is no God, wills that he should inform them."

I would also like to add a comment that I don’t consider anything but the bible inspired and do see a gradual change from the 2nd century onward until the Trinity is fully articulated centuries later. I don’t claim Justin had the same exact theology as did the apostles, but he did say things that later Catholic theologians would take issue with or certain work hard to “clarify.”

Dan *

Dan;

I’ll repeat myself

"’…the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob…,’" [1]
is God correct? According to St. Justin, that is the Son speaking those words (see the original passage.)

Again, according to Justin, it is the Son of God who is speaking the (above) mentioned words. Is not “…the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob…”* Yahweh?

*[see prev. post for source]

No, the writings of the ECF’s are not infallible; they do however give a picture of what those closest to the Apostles believed. Ignatius was already cited for you, there is only known to be 1 person between Peter and him in the Antiochian succession. My readings of the ECF’s was what convinced me that the early Christians looked more like the Eastern Orthodox/Catholics. Hence, my religion status.

I could imagine that there could be “wiggle room” in whatever passages are presented to you. I’m sure that one could always find another who has scholarly credentials to agree w/ their view. IMO orthodox Christianity has consistently taught for 2,000 years that the Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is God, and the Father is God; yet there is only 1 God.

So, I was baiting you (please forgive me), when I asked what to do that we don’t agree on our interpretation of Scripture. As Jimmy Akin pointed out in his debate w/ James White on “The Bible Answer Man”, when the opponents of the ECF’s both used Scripture to defend their arguments, the ECF"s could say hold on…we are in a Church founded by the Apostles. I assume he had St. Irenaeus (2nd century Bishop of Lyons) in mind if he didn’t mention him specifically, because in his “Against Heresies” he does just that; he refers to the fact that the tradition handed down from the Apostles was one in the same. He said one could find the truth by looking at the Churches founded by the Apostles (in today’s case; the Orthodox and Catholic communions.) Here is a clip;

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
(newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) (9/ 01/ 09)

I could use the same argument. Here is the credentials of the Church that I am attending and will be instructed by: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[LionHeart777]

As Jimmy Akin pointed out in his debate w/ James White on “The Bible Answer Man”, when the opponents of the ECF’s both used Scripture to defend their arguments, the ECF"s could say hold on…we are in a Church founded by the Apostles.

I meant both the Catholics and their [heretical] opponents based their arguments on Scripture, as Akin pointed out in the debate.

I would also like to add a comment that I don’t consider anything but the bible inspired and do see a gradual change from the 2nd century onward until the Trinity is fully articulated centuries later. I don’t claim Justin had the same exact theology as did the apostles, but he did say things that later Catholic theologians would take issue with or certain work hard to “clarify.”

I plan on reading “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, by Newman.
I believe he started out his study an Anglican and later converted to Catholicism as a result of his studies. Perhaps it would be a beneficial read for you if you haven’t read it either?

newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

No, the writings of the ECF’s are not infallible

are not inspired, I correct myself. Some works/authors contain error I believe.

 

[Dan_Parker]

LionHeart777:

I plan on reading “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine”, by Newman.
I believe he started out his study an Anglican and later converted to Catholicism as a result of his studies. Perhaps it would be a beneficial read for you if you haven’t read it either?

newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

It does seem like a good read. I went right to the Trinity. Did you know he admits not only that the Fathers did not agree with each other, some of them being considered heterodox like Tertullian but that the basic elements are not taught in Scripture.

The only way I can see that this would make someone convert to Catholicism is that if one already wants to believe these doctrines and since the bible does not teach them, the only rationalization for accepting them is post-doctrinal development after the bible canon was closed. This entails accepting the authority of those who won the councils over what the bible teaches explicitly.

Dan

 

[Poetess_Kera]

John 1:1 - " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 - “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus). God became flesh. God became Jesus. Jesus. is. God.

 

[Dan_Parker]

John 1:1 - " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 - “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

The Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus). God became flesh. God became Jesus. Jesus. is. God.

Welcome back to the discussion!

What you have presented in classical equivocation. Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

How about this? God is a Trinity and consists of three persons. The Word was God and therefore three persons (Jn 1:1) and the Trinity became flesh. (Jn 1:18)

Dan

 

[LionHeart777]

It does seem like a good read. I went right to the Trinity. Did you know he admits not only that the Fathers did not agree with each other, some of them being considered heterodox like Tertullian but that the basic elements are not taught in Scripture.

The only way I can see that this would make someone convert to Catholicism is that if one already wants to believe these doctrines and since the bible does not teach them, the only rationalization for accepting them is post-doctrinal development after the bible canon was closed. This entails accepting the authority of those who won the councils over what the bible teaches explicitly.

Dan, I believe that some who are considered ECF’s ended up outside of the Church. Tertullian is an example of such as I believe that he became a “Montanist”, and I’m not sure that he ever returned. If I’m not mistaken, in my copy of Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers Vol: 1 Tertullian’s writings are split into 3 periods; orthodox, semi-Montanist (maybe not the exact term), and Montanist.

As far as the basic elements of the Trinity not being in Scripture, I would have preferred a quote as it has already been noted that we don’t always interpret things the same way. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. Again, he converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism and I don’t understand your confusion over this although admittedly I have not read the work accept for maybe a handful of lines.

I take it though that you are in agreement with me that St. Justin believes the Son of God to be the God of the Patriarchs (i.e. Yahweh.)

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, I believe that some who are considered ECF’s ended up outside of the Church. Tertullian is an example of such as I believe that he became a “Montanist”, and I’m not sure that he ever returned. If I’m not mistaken, in my copy of Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers Vol: 1 Tertullian’s writings are split into 3 periods; orthodox, semi-Montanist (maybe not the exact term), and Montanist.

As far as the basic elements of the Trinity not being in Scripture, I would have preferred a quote as it has already been noted that we don’t always interpret things the same way. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, he is certainly entitled to his opinion. Again, he converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism and I don’t understand your confusion over this although admittedly I have not read the work accept for maybe a handful of lines.

I take it though that you are in agreement with me that St. Justin believes the Son of God to be the God of the Patriarchs (i.e. Yahweh.)

Here is the section to which I referred.

1. Go to the Introduction.
2. Click on Trinity.

Section 11:

Now let us look at the leading facts of the case, in appealing to which I must not be supposed to be ascribing any heresy to the holy men whose words have not always been sufficiently full or exact to preclude the imputation. First, the Creeds of that early day make no mention in {16} their letter of the Catholic doctrine at all. They make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, **that the Three are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them. **Of course we believe that they imply it, or rather intend it. God forbid we should do otherwise! But nothing in the mere letter of those documents leads to that belief. To give a deeper meaning to their letter, we must interpret them by the times which came after.

LionHeart777:
I take it though that you are in agreement with me that St. Justin believes the Son of God to be the God of the Patriarchs (i.e. Yahweh.)
**
Dan:**
No, and according to your source Justin may have given the Son the same type of “worship” as he gave angels.
Section 14:

And again, as to the argument derivable from the Doxologies, it must not be forgotten that one of the passages in St. Justin Martyr includes the worship of the Angels. “We worship and adore,” he says, “Him, and the Son who came from Him and taught us these things, and the host of those other good Angels, who follow and are like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.” [Note 16] A Unitarian might argue from this passage that the glory and worship which the early Church ascribed to our Lord was not more definite than that which St. Justin was ready to concede to creatures.

Dan

 

[LionHeart777]

No, and according to your source Justin may have given the Son the same type of “worship” as he gave angels.

My source was the “New Advent” website for St. Justin. I didn’t see a link to the info you said was from my source.

I will deal w/ your response in the future and come back again to St. Justin referring to the Son of God as the God of the Patriarchs. In JW Theology, is the God of the Patriarchs Jesus Christ?

Your interpretations of both Newman and “my source” give me pause at first glance. I’ll come back and take a look later.

 

[Dan_Parker]

My source was the “New Advent” website for St. Justin. I didn’t see a link to the info you said was from my source.

Dan:
Both were from Newman in that post, just different sections.

I will deal w/ your response in the future and come back again to St. Justin referring to the Son of God as the God of the Patriarchs. In JW Theology, is the God of the Patriarchs Jesus Christ?

Dan:
No, Not in JW Theology or in Scripture. Did I miss you presenting a compelling argument to the contrary to which I did not respond?

Your interpretations of both Newman and “my source” give me pause at first glance. I’ll come back and take a look later.

Dan:
Newman and “your source” are one and the same. You can duplicate the quotes from my instructions.

Dan

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan,

Thanks for clarifying about “my source” it makes it easier for me to look up later.

re: my compelling argument. It had to do w/ St. Justin’s equating the “angel” w/ the God of the Patriarchs. I will re-post it here:

“…He [Jesus] endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, **‘And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ **yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.” (newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (8/ 31/ 09, accessed) (Emphasis mine)

In other words it is the angel who says “‘I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’”

Can you see what I am getting at now?

furthermore, if you will track down the original clip I gave than I believe you will see that the “angel” and the God of the Patriarchs refer to The Son who he says was talking at the bush and not the Father.

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan, I believe that some who are considered ECF’s ended up outside of the Church. Tertullian is an example of such as I believe that he became a “Montanist”, and I’m not sure that he ever returned. If I’m not mistaken, in my copy of Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers Vol: 1 Tertullian’s writings are split into 3 periods; orthodox, semi-Montanist (maybe not the exact term), and Montanist.

I came across this today which would correct my classing of Tertullian as an ECF (“officially”)

“Some [ECF’s], such as Origen and Tertullian (who are not officially titled ‘Fathers,’ although they are ranked among the major theological writers of the early Church), even lapsed into heresy.” (catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051) ( accessed 9/ 03/ 09)

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Thanks for clarifying about “my source” it makes it easier for me to look up later.

re: my compelling argument. It had to do w/ St. Justin’s equating the “angel” w/ the God of the Patriarchs. I will re-post it here:

“…He [Jesus] endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, **‘And the angel of God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,’ **yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.” (newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (8/ 31/ 09, accessed) (Emphasis mine)

In other words it is the angel who says “‘I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’”

Can you see what I am getting at now?

furthermore, if you will track down the original clip I gave than I believe you will see that the “angel” and the God of the Patriarchs refer to The Son who he says was talking at the bush and not the Father.

I think you misinterpret Justin. He is arguing against the Jews who did not acknowledge that God has a Son, but he does **not **consider the Son to be the Creator. In my quote from Lukyn in my post to you. at forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5643144&postcount=63 he makes that point that in the Dialogue from Trypho Justin calls the Son God but distinguishes him from the Supreme God. More on “God” later.

I looked on your site and pulled up the quote from Trypho to confirm Lukyn, here it is:

Chapter 60. Opinions of the Jews with regard to Him who appeared in the bush

**Trypho: **We do not perceive this from the passage quoted by you, but [only this], that it was an angel who appeared in the flame of fire, but God who conversed with Moses; so that there were really two persons in company with each other, an angel and God, that appeared in that vision.

**Justin: **Even if this were so, my friends, that an angel and God were together in the vision seen by Moses, yet, as has already been proved to you by the passages previously quoted, it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, but it will be He who has been proved to you to have appeared to Abraham, ministering to the will of the Maker of all things, and likewise carrying into execution His counsel in the judgment of Sodom; so that, even though it be as you say, that there were two—an angel and God—he who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth.

Justin says that the angel who appeared to Abraham and when Sodom was destroyed as well as the burning bush was the Son and not the Creator. This Son was subordinate to the Creator and “ministering to the will of the Maker of all things.” Thus when Justin calls the Son an angel he means an angel not as what you would consider a theophany but one sent by the creator to minister to his will.

As to Justin’s used of God (QEOS) in the text, how it is rendered into English could vary by the translator. Justin wrote in Greek and so a particular translators could slant the rendering towards their view of Justin’s theology.

That being said, from your own site it is clear that Justin did not consider the Son to be the Creator or equal with God even though he was called QEOS.

 

[Dan_Parker]

I came across this today which would correct my classing of Tertullian as an ECF (“officially”)

“Some [ECF’s], such as Origen and Tertullian (who are not officially titled ‘Fathers,’ although they are ranked among the major theological writers of the early Church), even lapsed into heresy.” (catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051) ( accessed 9/ 03/ 09)

Thanks for that. Since Justin Martyr did not consider the Son to be the Creator, how does the Catholic Church view him?

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan,

again in the quote that you offered up from St. Justin, he seems to be referring to the Son that claimed to be the God of the Patriarchs. Would you agree with him on that point? Is the Son the God of the Patriarchs in your opinion? Do you concede that Justin is claiming that?

I’m admittedly no Patristics scholar so I couldn’t analyze St. Justin’s Theology regarding the Trinity.

Here is a quote from his The First Apology

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably, for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, but they are ignorant of the mystery that lies therein (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).” (catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512frs.asp) (accessed 9/ 30/ 09.)

I came across this passage last night while reading my copy of St. Justin Martyr: The First and second Apologies, translated and edited by Leslie William Barnard (Paulist Press, New Jersey: 1997 copyright) (pg. 31.) At the end of the sentence “…and the Spirit of prophecy a third…” (using the translation found at the url above here), there is a footnote.

On pages 116-117 of Barnard, we find the explanation of the footnote:

“…Much of Justin’s language about the Spirit has an impersonal ring but the epithet of ‘prophetic’ here has a more personal tone. The lineaments of a Trinitarian doctrine are visible here although little can be gleaned from his words as to the relationship of the three persons; cf. the threefold formula in 1 Apol. 61.3, 13; 65.2 ; 67.2. Athen. Leg.* 10.3 goes further in describing the triad as having a power in union and distinction in rank. This rank or order (taxis), mentioned by Justin and Athenagoras, is not intended to suggest degrees of subordination within the Godhead but refers to the triad as manifested in creation and revelation; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London 1958) 103-64. Justin’s statement is the language of Christian experience and worship rather than doctrinal definition.”

Barnard’s book is part of the “Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation”, series.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

again in the quote that you offered up from St. Justin, he seems to be referring to the Son that claimed to be the God of the Patriarchs. Would you agree with him on that point? Is the Son the God of the Patriarchs in your opinion? Do you concede that Justin is claiming that?

Dan:
Justin claimed that the Son spoke those words. However if you look at the the argument to which he was replying and that context of that discussion he was refuting the notion that there could have been two persons at the bush, God and an angel. Considering the fact that Justin says that the Son is an angel in the sense of ministering to the will of the Father the angel is not speaking his own words, but is speaking them on behalf of God himself and not claiming to be God himself.

LionHeart777:
I’m admittedly no Patristics scholar so I couldn’t analyze St. Justin’s Theology regarding the Trinity.

Dan:
I have never heard of a Trinitarian who would claim the Son is not the Creator, have you?

LionHeart777:
Here is a quote from his The First Apology

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably, for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, but they are ignorant of the mystery that lies therein (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).” (catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512frs.asp) (accessed 9/ 30/ 09.)

I came across this passage last night while reading my copy of St. Justin Martyr: The First and second Apologies, translated and edited by Leslie William Barnard (Paulist Press, New Jersey: 1997 copyright) (pg. 31.) At the end of the sentence “…and the Spirit of prophecy a third…” (using the translation found at the url above here), there is a footnote.

Dan:
I don’t claim that Justin is inspired or that he was correct in everything, but I agree with him that the Son is not the Creator and that he holds second place to the Creator.

LionHeart777:
On pages 116-117 of Barnard, we find the explanation of the footnote:

“…Much of Justin’s language about the Spirit has an impersonal ring but the epithet of ‘prophetic’ here has a more personal tone. The lineaments of a Trinitarian doctrine are visible here although little can be gleaned from his words as to the relationship of the three persons; cf. the threefold formula in 1 Apol. 61.3, 13; 65.2 ; 67.2. Athen. Leg.** 10.3 goes further in describing the triad as having a power in union and distinction in rank. This rank or order (taxis), mentioned by Justin and Athenagoras, is not intended to suggest degrees of subordination within the Godhead but refers to the triad as manifested in creation and revelation; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London 1958) 103-64. Justin’s statement is the language of Christian experience and worship rather than doctrinal definition.”

*Barnard’s book is part of the “Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation”, series.

Dan:
As I said, he considers the Father the Creator of all things. The Son is not the creator. The Son is an angel, not a theophany, but one who ministers to the will of the Father. That is a long way from the Trinity.

As a matter of fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Father does all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit. We don’t teach that the Father and Son are the same Being. From what I see of Justin, he believed this as well.

 

[LionHeart777]

I think you misinterpret Justin. He is arguing against the Jews who did not acknowledge that God has a Son, but he does not consider the Son to be the Creator. In my quote from Lukyn in my post to you. at forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…4&postcount=63 he makes that point that in the Dialogue from Trypho Justin calls the Son God but distinguishes him from the Supreme God. More on “God” later.

Even if what you are saying is true, does Justin have 2 Gods in your opinion?

P.S. Justin has been Canonized by the CC. As to specific comments about his Theology, I don’t think there exists any infallible declaration from the Holy See. As far as what scholars have said or other ECF’s I don’t have too much info, sorry. If you are a fan of Justin, why not become Catholic?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Even if what you are saying is true, does Justin have 2 Gods in your opinion?

P.S. Justin has been Canonized by the CC. As to specific comments about his Theology, I don’t think there exists any infallible declaration from the Holy See. As far as what scholars have said or other ECF’s I don’t have too much info, sorry. If you are a fan of Justin, why not become Catholic?

Catholics teach that the Son is the Creator along with his Father, do they not? Justin was no Catholic. Justin was more of a Jehovah’s Witness, but again I qualify this: I don’t claim he was and that he taught exactly as we do or that there are not significant differences. I bring up Justin because Catholics claim him as their own.

The problem with answering the question in English as to whether or not Justin believed in 2 Gods (not three!) is that you are representing something in English by capitalizing a word that was not capitalized in Greek and because Greek has ways of distinguishing between QEOS and hO QEOS that don’t come through in your question in English.

It is certain that Justin did not have 2 Gods who were both the Creator. He had one Creator and one who was called an angel and who ministered to that God.

If you have a quote of Justin to that effect, lets see it and look at it in context.