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

[LionHeart777]

If Justin was more of a JW than a Catholic maybe we could examine some of his other Theology and see if this holds true?

p.s. I am not implying that Justin was a polytheist, the answer I expected was a no.

also Justin was just sited as an example. If you don’t believe that Justin thought that Jesus is Divine perhaps I could cite other ECF’s.

Do JW’s believe Jesus is God?

 

[Ziggy]

Saint Justin Martyr thought of the Son as to be adored and worshipped(See 1 Apology 6) and that Christ is divine (1 Apology 10 & 63)

The trinity is explained well by St. Athanasius’ first letter to Serapion:

“We acknowledge the Trinity, holy and perfect, to consist of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this Trinity there is no intrusion of any alien element or of anything from outside, nor is the Trinity a blend of creative and created being. It is a wholly creative and energizing reality, self-consistent and undivided in its active power, for the Father makes all things through the Word and in the Holy Spirit, and in this way the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Accordingly, in the Church, one God is preached, one God who is above all things and through all things and in all things. God is above all things as Father, for he is principle and source; he is through all things through the Word; and he is in all things in the Holy Spirit.”

Hope this is helpful

 

[Dan_Parker]

If Justin was more of a JW than a Catholic maybe we could examine some of his other Theology and see if this holds true?

p.s. I am not implying that Justin was a polytheist, the answer I expected was a no.

also Justin was just sited as an example. If you don’t believe that Justin thought that Jesus is Divine perhaps I could cite other ECF’s.

Do JW’s believe Jesus is God?

JWs believe Jesus is divine and like Justin we don’t consider him to be the Creator. Justin did not write in English and could not say “Jesus is God.” In Greek he could say QEOS HN hO LOGOS. It is certain that he did not believe Jesus was God in the same way that you believe he is God.

As for Justin’s theology, I was speaking of his Christology and don’t recall any information about his other beliefs.

 

[LionHeart777]

JWs believe Jesus is divine

what does that mean?

Re: Justin not thinking Jesus is God; here we seem to come full circle to your OP and the argument you use for the Apostles allegedly not believing Jesus is God.

Do they believe He is God the Father? No. Do they explicitly say that He is God. Yes. Do they imply it? Probably. Do their actions imply it? Yes.

Question; is the only logical way to account for the reason they don’t use the exact same formula, assuming you are correct, when calling Jesus God is that Jesus must not be God? I don’t think so.

You seem to think well, no, they call Him God but they don’t call Him the one God.
How many God’s are there Dan?

You’re argument w/ St. Justin seems based on;

a) Justin doesn’t identify Jesus as the Creator, therefore He is not God.

when you have him making explicit statements to the fact that he does claim that Christ is God, you say, that’s not what the Greek says.

here is the original passage I cited:

“’…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. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, ‘Israel does not know Me, my people have not understood Me.’ Isaiah 1:3 And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, ‘No one knows the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.’ Matthew 11:27 The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spoke to Moses, though He who spoke to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”’(newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (8/ 31/ 09, accessed) (Emphasis mine)

What is the word in the Greek he uses then for God? What # in Strong’s Lexicon?

 

[LionHeart777]

If my thesis is correct, that the Apostles believed and taught that Jesus is God, then logically we should see that echo in the ECF’s. Do we see it, I believe so.

If your thesis is correct that “Jesus is not God”, than I feel that logically we will see that teaching amongst the ECF’s. Do we see it?

No, not from what I know of them. All we have is your allegation that Justin had JW Christology.

You were cited Ignatius, how about him. Actually, if you could, please cite me one ECF that taught that “Jesus is the archangel Michael.”

 

[LionHeart777]

p.s. I spoke hastily when I challenged you to take a look at Justin’s wider Theology…I didn’t read well enough that you weren’t trying to claim Justin as a JW as you had qualified.

Also, this statement:

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.

That would only seem plausible to me if the Angel didn’t claim for Himself the Divine Name; the God of the Patriarchs. If He were merely delivering a message; you might have an easier time getting away with that.

For example, if I come to you as a messenger from the Governor’s office I would not claim to be the Governor.

 

[Dan_Parker]

what does that mean?

Re: Justin not thinking Jesus is God; here we seem to come full circle to your OP and the argument you use for the Apostles allegedly not believing Jesus is God.

Do they believe He is God the Father? No. Do they explicitly say that He is God. Yes. Do they imply it? Probably. Do their actions imply it? Yes.

Question; is the only logical way to account for the reason they don’t use the exact same formula, assuming you are correct, when calling Jesus God is that Jesus must not be God? I don’t think so.

You seem to think well, no, they call Him God but they don’t call Him the one God.
How many God’s are there Dan?

You’re argument w/ St. Justin seems based on;

a) Justin doesn’t identify Jesus as the Creator, therefore He is not God.

when you have him making explicit statements to the fact that he does claim that Christ is God, you say, that’s not what the Greek says.

here is the original passage I cited:

“’…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. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, ‘Israel does not know Me, my people have not understood Me.’ Isaiah 1:3 And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, ‘No one knows the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him.’ Matthew 11:27 The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spoke to Moses, though He who spoke to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”’(newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (8/ 31/ 09, accessed) (Emphasis mine)

What is the word in the Greek he uses then for God? What # in Strong’s Lexicon?

There is more to the difference between God and the Son in Justin besides the Father alone being the creator.

Chapter 127. These passages of Scripture do not apply to the Father, but to the Word

Justin: These and other such sayings are recorded by the lawgiver and by the prophets; and I suppose that I have stated sufficiently, that wherever God says, 'God went up from Abraham,' Genesis 18:22 or, 'The Lord spoke to Moses,' Exodus 6:29 and 'The Lord came down to behold the tower which the sons of men had built,' Genesis 11:5 or when 'God shut Noah into the ark,' Genesis 7:16 **you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth**, when the people at Sinai were not able to look even on the glory of Him who was sent from Him; and Moses himself could not enter into the tabernacle which he had erected, when it was filled with the glory of God; and the priest could not endure to stand before the temple when Solomon conveyed the ark into the house in Jerusalem which he had built for it? **Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will**; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: 'And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.' Genesis 19:24 and again, when it is thus said by David: 'Lift up your gates, you rulers; and be lifted up, you everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall enter;' and again, when He says: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'

According to Justin God is so great that he could not have come to earth but that the Son could. According to Fisher, History of Christian Dogma, page **64 **in my copy this is evidence that that the Son entered into place and time, something that could not contain the Father.

Also according to Fisher, not only is the Son not the Creator, but Justin does not fully succeed from taking Christ out of the category of creature. (page 63).

 

[Dan_Parker]

p.s. I spoke hastily when I challenged you to take a look at Justin’s wider Theology…I didn’t read well enough that you weren’t trying to claim Justin as a JW as you had qualified.

Also, this statement:

That would only seem plausible to me if the Angel didn’t claim for Himself the Divine Name; the God of the Patriarchs. If He were merely delivering a message; you might have an easier time getting away with that.

For example, if I come to you as a messenger from the Governor’s office I would not claim to be the Governor.

That depends on the context. The Governor has an important message. He writes it down so that every word is specified perfectly. The messenger goes to the recipient, opens the envelope and reads it word for word … “I am the Governor… you better listen to what I have to say…”

However we don’t need conjecture or imperfect analogies. We have God’s word. In Acts is says that angels (plural) transmitted the law.
NAB Acts 7:53 You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it."

When we read the OT that Yahweh gave a law to Moses, how does it read. look at the beginning of almost each chapter in Leviticus.

NJB Leviticus 1:1 Yahweh summoned Moses and, speaking to him from the Tent of Meeting, said, 2 'Speak to the Israelites; say to them, "When any of you brings an offering to Yahweh, he can offer an animal either from the herd or from the flock.

We know this was an angel because of what Acts says, but it says it is Yahweh.

That is the pattern one finds in the OT.

 

[LionHeart777]

There is more to the difference between God and the Son in Justin besides the Father alone being the creator.

Chapter 127. These passages of Scripture do not apply to the Father, but to the Word

Justin: These and other such sayings are recorded by the lawgiver and by the prophets; and I suppose that I have stated sufficiently, that wherever God says, 'God went up from Abraham,' Genesis 18:22 or, 'The Lord spoke to Moses,' Exodus 6:29 and 'The Lord came down to behold the tower which the sons of men had built,' Genesis 11:5 or when 'God shut Noah into the ark,' Genesis 7:16 you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth, when the people at Sinai were not able to look even on the glory of Him who was sent from Him; and Moses himself could not enter into the tabernacle which he had erected, when it was filled with the glory of God; and the priest could not endure to stand before the temple when Solomon conveyed the ark into the house in Jerusalem which he had built for it? Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: 'And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.' Genesis 19:24 and again, when it is thus said by David: 'Lift up your gates, you rulers; and be lifted up, you everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall enter;' and again, when He says: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'

According to Justin God is so great that he could not have come to earth but that the Son could. According to Fisher, History of Christian Dogma, page 64 in my copy this is evidence that that the Son entered into place and time, something that could not contain the Father.

Also according to Fisher, not only is the Son not the Creator, but Justin does not fully succeed from taking Christ out of the category of creature. (page 63).

---

Dan

Dan, all I can see that this passage shows is that according to Justin, God the Father never came to earth. Well, of that I plead ignorance. I do know that God the Son came to earth, was crucified under Pontius Pilate to redeem mankind at now sits at the right hand of the Father. I do also know from what I can tell, God Holy Spirit came to earth and does now indwell the elect.

As for Fisher, I don’t know who he is. Is he a Bishop? Is he Pope? Is he a Doctor of the Church or an Early Church Father? Is he a Saint? What claim to Apostolic succession does Fisher have? Is he even a Catholic? Is he an Orthodox Christian or Protestant?

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan, I should tell you up front that I am going to be very skeptical of you interpretations of Scripture. I most definitely am not comfortable with someone who holds to the interpretation of John 1:1 that you do giving an exposition of Sacred Scripture.

If you want to believe that St. Justin believed that Jesus was a creature or was not God, that is your prerogative. I don’t think you have a good case, especially in light of the fact that he calls Him God.

I don’t think you will be able to “hijack” the rest of the ECF’s regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[LionHeart777]

"‘You Roman Catholics,’ says the Jehovah’s Witness at the door, 'claim the Bible teaches your doctrines, yet your own theologians deny this.

‘A Catholic priest, John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, shows how the Trinity, for instance, is not a Bible doctrine.’"

(catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp)(accessed 9/ 03/ 09)

“The Witnesses also attack another doctrine, the divinity of Christ, using McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible. Reasoning From the Scriptures tries to bolster the Witnesses’ translation of John 1:1 (‘the Word was a god’) with the following quotation from McKenzie’s entry on God: 'John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”

The Witnesses believe John 1:1 teaches Jesus was a lesser god, but not the Almighty God. They’re willing to say Christ was (and is) a divine being, but not the supremely Divine Being. Their citation of McKenzie is an attempt to show how even a Catholic Scripture scholar admits John 1:1 teaches this.’"
(Ibid.)

I believe that this is your beloved McKenzie. This article might be a beneficial read for any Catholic viewing this thread.

“Groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t flinch at mistranslating even the Bible itself, so it’s not surprising they feel free to misuse the writings of people of faiths other than their own. When dealing with the Witnesses, the best approach is expressed in the words of Jesus: ‘Be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves’ (Matt. 10:16).”

(ibid.)

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, all I can see that this passage shows is that according to Justin, God the Father never came to earth. Well, of that I plead ignorance. I do know that God the Son came to earth, was crucified under Pontius Pilate to redeem mankind at now sits at the right hand of the Father. I do also know from what I can tell, God Holy Spirit came to earth and does now indwell the elect.

Dan:
How is that possible that you did not see the part that I bolded for your comment? You have not commented on it. Please do.

you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth

Do you see all the reasons why Justin said the Father could not have been on the earth? At the same time he distinguishes between Father and Son and all these things are true of the Son including not existing before the world was made. From what I have read recently Justin held to the view that the Son was “in” the Father until a point in time when the Father begot him as a person for the purpose of creation. That is two-stage Christology. In this way one can consider the Son to be God and eternal but at the same time support verses like Pr 8:22 where in the Greek LXX he was created before the world for the purpose of being the master worker.

As for Fisher, I don’t know who he is. Is he a Bishop? Is he Pope? Is he a Doctor of the Church or an Early Church Father? Is he a Saint? What claim to Apostolic succession does Fisher have? Is he even a Catholic? Is he an Orthodox Christian or Protestant?

Dan:
Fisher is a well known Patristics scholar. I suppose he has as little credibility with you as does and ECF or a Bishop or a Pope I used his reference to show that this was not my interpretation alone but that an expert in the field holds this view.

 

[Dan_Parker]

"‘You Roman Catholics,’ says the Jehovah’s Witness at the door, 'claim the Bible teaches your doctrines, yet your own theologians deny this.

‘A Catholic priest, John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, shows how the Trinity, for instance, is not a Bible doctrine.’"

(catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp)(accessed 9/ 03/ 09)

“The Witnesses also attack another doctrine, the divinity of Christ, using McKenzie’s Dictionary of the Bible. Reasoning From the Scriptures tries to bolster the Witnesses’ translation of John 1:1 (‘the Word was a god’) with the following quotation from McKenzie’s entry on God: 'John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God =the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”

The Witnesses believe John 1:1 teaches Jesus was a lesser god, but not the Almighty God. They’re willing to say Christ was (and is) a divine being, but not the supremely Divine Being. Their citation of McKenzie is an attempt to show how even a Catholic Scripture scholar admits John 1:1 teaches this.’"
(Ibid.)

I believe that this is your beloved McKenzie. This article might be a beneficial read for any Catholic viewing this thread.

“Groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t flinch at mistranslating even the Bible itself, so it’s not surprising they feel free to misuse the writings of people of faiths other than their own. When dealing with the Witnesses, the best approach is expressed in the words of Jesus: ‘Be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves’ (Matt. 10:16).”

(ibid.)

Looks like fiction to me

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, I should tell you up front that I am going to be very skeptical of you interpretations of Scripture. I most definitely am not comfortable with someone who holds to the interpretation of John 1:1 that you do giving an exposition of Sacred Scripture.

If you want to believe that St. Justin believed that Jesus was a creature or was not God, that is your prerogative. I don’t think you have a good case, especially in light of the fact that he calls Him God.

I don’t think you will be able to “hijack” the rest of the ECF’s regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I have already shown you from your own source where Justin calls the Father Creator and distinguishes him from the Son on that basis. In a recent post I explain how some early theologians viewed the Son as being “in” the Father and that he was brought forth as a personal being for the purpose of creation. That explains how they consider him to be “God” and “eternal” but yet had a beginning. I don’t have time to hunt down references for this right now. You may find some on your own if you like. This thread is dragging on way longer than its import considering that I don’t claim any ECF taught exactly like the Apostles or like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

For that matter he does not teach as do modern day Catholics who evidently consider that the Son is the Creator.

Do you recall the link and text I supplied you? Do you agree that Justin does not consider the Son to be the Creator?

newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

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.

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan, I’ll have to look at all of this, there is quite a bit to interact w/.

quick ? Do you believe that the Patristic evidence is on your side regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ? i.e. that He is in fact God.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, I’ll have to look at all of this, there is quite a bit to interact w/.

quick ? Do you believe that the Patristic evidence is on your side regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ? i.e. that He is in fact God.

What I see is that from the 2nd century onward the writings of theologians started to incorporate Greek philosophy and that their doctrine evolved for centuries until the doctrine of the Trinity was fully developed. The closer one gets back to the first century, the more similar their views are to Jehovah’s Witnesses and what the Apostles and inspired writers actually wrote in context.

In addition the Patristic writings are not represented by as many manuscripts and have in some cases been tampered with.

Therefore I value the Patristic evidence as historical documents that need to be interpreted properly

 

[LionHeart777]

I have already shown you from your own source where Justin calls the Father Creator and distinguishes him from the Son on that basis.

If that is so, and I will admit that Justin does seem to call the Father Creator, that doesn’t mean that St. Justin doesn’t call Christ God, for he clearly does…as does John the Apostle. IMO, it is the JW’s who do all sorts of “bobbing and weaving” to disregard the plain meaning of the text. Shall I cite Patristic sources on John 1?

the fact that you brushed off the article I cited regarding JW’s misquoting sources (even specifically McKenzie on John 1) gives me pause. The claims made in that tract of how JW’s misquote people is very pertinent to the current conversation, as you have already cited him in this thread to bolster you interpretation of John 1.

St. Ignatius was a JW too?

The closer one gets back to the first century, the more similar their views are to Jehovah’s Witnesses and what the Apostles and inspired writers actually wrote in context.

Like Jesus being Michael the archangel?
Cite me 1 ECF who holds that view…you accuse the ECF’s of invention regarding the Trinity yet you hold such a view of Jesus Christ?

Is it not possible that the ECF’s used Greek philosophy as a means to communicate Christianity?

Did not John employ the term Logos? Even Gibbon pointed that out in his “Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire.”

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia on Logos:

“The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something.”

From: (newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm) (accessed 09/ 04/ 09.)

 

[Dan_Parker]

If that is so, and I will admit that Justin does seem to call the Father Creator, that doesn’t mean that St. Justin doesn’t call Christ God, for he clearly does…as does John the Apostle. IMO, it is the JW’s who do all sorts of “bobbing and weaving” to disregard the plain meaning of the text. Shall I cite Patristic sources on John 1?

Dan:
I don’t claim Justin for my own, you do. If you want to discuss the text, lets do it.

LionHeart777
the fact that you brushed off the article I cited regarding JW’s misquoting sources (even specifically McKenzie on John 1) gives me pause. The claims made in that tract of how JW’s misquote people is very pertinent to the current conversation, as you have already cited him in this thread to bolster you interpretation of John 1.

Dan:
I brushed it off because it is nothing I have ever experienced and I have been knocking on doors for over 50 years. It does not ring true. Why not address what I explicitly wrote in the article on McKenzie in my signature. I state that I quote McKenzie to support the translation “a god” and not the interpretation. In fact I did not bring up John 1:1, a Catholic brought it up. They indicated that the translation was not correct. I use McKenzie to show it is a valid way to translate the text and at the same time acknowledge he interprets it differently. No JW would ever bring up John 1:1 as a proof-text of our theology. It is a red-herring that is brought up by those who criticize us. That is why your article does not seem realistic. Now, could someone bring up McKenzie AFTER John 1:1 is brought up to them. YES! I have experience that.

LionHeart777
St. Ignatius was a JW too?

Dan:
I don’t claim either to be JW. I do see that the earlier one goes back in time to the 2nd century the theologians are closer to our theology that later.
**
LionHeart777**
Like Jesus being Michael the archangel?
Cite me 1 ECF who holds that view…you accuse the ECF’s of invention regarding the Trinity yet you hold such a view of Jesus Christ?

Dan:
JWs do believe Jesus and Michael are the same person. However we are not dogmatic on that belief and don’t build other doctrines on it. For example we claim this as proof that Jesus was created. As for what ECF’s teach, that is not a good criteria, and here is why. Your Church selects the ECF for what they taught and decides if they should be considered Fathers or not. Therefore you stack the deck with that challenge!

As for angel-Christology, it is quite well documented that many theologians of the 2nd century considered Christ to be an angel. The LXX at Isaiah 9:6 calls him the angel of great counsel and even the Fathers quoted that.

So the identification of the Son as an angel is quite secure. Justin considered him to be such, and in the sense of one that ministers to the Creator and not as a theophany.

Why did Justin call him God? And how did he call him God? I would need to see the Greek to answer that completely, but I have recently read that Justin believed, as did others of his time, that the Son was “in” the Father until he was created as a personal being for the creation of the universe. Therefore someone can consider the Son to be God in that sense and also eternal in sense while allowing for him to have a beginning.

 

[LionHeart777]

As for angel-Christology, it is quite well documented that many theologians of the 2nd century considered Christ to be an angel.

to the exclusion of Him being God?

 

[Dan_Parker]

to the exclusion of Him being God?

Remember, the Anti-Nicene Fathers wrote in Greek. JWs do not exclude the LOGOS from being QEOS. That is what is stated in the last clause of John 1:1 and we accept that. The question is how is that to be interpreted, not whether or not it is true.