John 1:1

[FCEGM]

The Greek word for “doctrine” is “teaching.” Justin Martyr taught that the Son was not the Creator, only the Father was the creator. He also taught that the Father could not have been on the earth, but only the Son because the Father was so much greater.

Do Catholics teach this today?

As you should know by now, not every word from every Church Father, Saint or not, is seen as necessarily expressing the Catholic Faith. This is especially true of those ante-Nicene Fathers who did not have the language of the Council to express the Faith they received from the Apostles and the bishops they appointed. Since the JW’s only originated out of the mind of “Pastor” Russell, trying to compare his errors which were formative to your organization to the errors or imprecisions of any of the early Church Fathers which were not formative, is a fool’s errand.

But further, your paraphrasing empties the substance right out of St. Justin’s words. Justin rightly makes the distinction between the Father and His only-begotten Son and the fact that it was the Son Who became Incarnate, not the Father. Your problem arises in your not understanding Trinitarian doctrine (and thus Justin Martyr) because you compare unbegotten with “only-begotten” and see that one must refer only to God and the other to a creature of God, though His highest creature. Orthodox Christianity recognizes that the Father is unbegotten and the Son is the only-begotten and that His being begotten is an infinite and eternal begetting. This is explained well by Bl. Columba Marmion:

"The Father, the fullness of all life, begets a Son. From the Father and the Son, as from one Source only, proceeds the Spirit of Love. All these have the same eternity, the same infinity of perfection, the same wisdom, the same power, the same holiness - because the divine nature is one, only, for the three Persons.

“But each Person possesses exclusive properties - those of ‘being Father,’ ‘being Son,’ ‘proceeding from the Father and the Son’ - which establish the ineffable relations between themselves and distinguish them from each other. There is an order of origin, without there being any priority of time, or any hierarchical superiority, or any relation of dependence.,” Christ in His Mysteries, pgs. 45-46.

Further (and as I already said to you), in the Apostles’ Creed, the Father is named Creator as the First Person of the Holy Trinity: “we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord. . .”

198 Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last,1 the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works. Catechism of the Catholic Church

It was fitting, then, as Justin implicitly says, that the Son, through whom all things were made become Incarnate to accomplish our redemption, precisely because all things are made through Him. This fittingness continues for Justin because he see that it was the Son Who prepared His own way in revealing Himself as “I AM” to Moses and His preparation of His People through His encounters with Abraham.

These words of St. Justin to Trypho could aptly be said to you, Dan:

But if you knew, Trypho, who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. Dialogue, #126

 

[LionHeart777]

Do you have links for those threads for the benefit of those who would like to read the quotes?

Feel free to respond to the position I took back then. No need to repeat it again, is there? It prevailed the first time

I would have to search for them.

But:

a) it’s your should position should remember it. I think that was how you left it which…is weak IMO.

b) why not speak on it now? how do you deal w/ Justin equating Jesus w/ the God of the patriarchs in that passage?

 

[Dan_Parker]

I would have to search for them.

But:

a) it’s your should position should remember it. I think that was how you left it which…is weak IMO.

b) why not speak on it now? how do you deal w/ Justin equating Jesus w/ the God of the patriarchs in that passage?

Rather than hash it out again I would go back and re-read my original posts. I am not going to do this from memory. If you would like you can quote him here in context, since this is your argument. If I remember correctly looking at him in context and expanding beyond just a few sentences reveals a theology that is not considered Orthodox by the standards of modern day Catholics.

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan,

o.k. but time to read about Colonial Latin America…I’m a full time student, a husband, and a father I’m trying to get my teaching certificate and can’t wait to be done:thumbsup:

 

[Dan_Parker]

I would have to search for them.

But:

a) it’s your should position should remember it. I think that was how you left it which…is weak IMO.

b) why not speak on it now? how do you deal w/ Justin equating Jesus w/ the God of the patriarchs in that passage?

I found the old posts. You did not have much to say about it then, saying the quotes gave you a lot to think about, if I recall. Perhaps you have had time, since you want to discuss it now. Here are the quotes.

Dan:
Note that Justin says

** Chapter 60. Opinions of the Jews with regard to Him who appeared in the bush**
newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

** 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.

Dan:
Justin may call the Son God here, but not in the same sense as his Father who alone is the Creator.

Now lets look at the next quote where Justin denies that the Father could

There is more to the difference between God and the Son in Justin besides the Father alone being the creator. He calls the Father the unbegotten God who is so great he cannot come to any place. He says the Son is an angel, not because it is Theophany but because he ministers to the will of the Father.

Chapter 127. These passages of Scripture do not apply to the Father, but to the Word
newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm

** 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.’

 

[Dan_Parker]

FCEGM:
As you should know by now, not every word from every Church Father, Saint or not, is seen as necessarily expressing the Catholic Faith. This is especially true of those ante-Nicene Fathers who did not have the language of the Council to express the Faith they received from the Apostles and the bishops they appointed.

Dan:
It seems quite strange that you say Justin who was closer in time to the apostles and who received the Faith from the apostles would not be able to identify the Creator as both the Father and Son without the language of those who came much later. I found the Justin quotes and posted them again at the following link.

 

[twb1621]

If you notice, Dan now “excommunicated” you as well. You have become the infamous “goat” that is doomed to annihilation. JW’s do not go to church. They attend meetings at their Kingdom Hall. I have listened in on those meetings. They are scrutinized beyond words. They are taught how to talk, walk and act. They set up scenerios whereby they are speaking with other faiths and told exactly what they are to say. I speak the truth here and Dan knows this.

JW’s are not interested in anything that you have to say because they are taught that anything that you say is from satan. They are taught that the Blessed Trinity is an idea founded by satan so that we will not worship the one true Jehovah. JW’s are only interested in promoting their doctrines (which continue to change) and are almost never interested in what you have to say. They are taught this from day one.

My JW friend that I conversed with at work for almost three years would rewind daily. I would mention something and he would ponder it and then the next day he would start all over again as if I had never spoken to him before. He would pull out his bible and start quoting all kinds of stuff relating to whatever and then follow it with a " so that would indicate that…" and then complete his thought. It is incredibly frustrating because it is as if you don’t even exist except as a receptacle for their teachings.

Anyway, I just thought that since Dan “excommunicated” you , you might want to know some of this if you didn’t already…Peace my friend and keep praying for Dan. I said a rosary for him and I will offer up the next Mass for him as well. Nothing is impossible with God…teachccd

Thank you teach, it is held with sincere appreciation and reflects well the experience at hand…
God’s peace my friend.

 

[Tomster]

I excommunicated twb1621.

Dan,

You are starting to sound very “papal.” Where did you get the authority to make such a pronouncement?

 

[Tomster]

As you should know by now, not every word from every Church Father, Saint or not, is seen as necessarily expressing the Catholic Faith. This is especially true of those ante-Nicene Fathers who did not have the language of the Council to express the Faith they received from the Apostles and the bishops they appointed. Since the JW’s only originated out of the mind of “Pastor” Russell, trying to compare his errors which were formative to your organization to the errors or imprecisions of any of the early Church Fathers which were not formative, is a fool’s errand.

But further, your paraphrasing empties the substance right out of St. Justin’s words. Justin rightly makes the distinction between the Father and His only-begotten Son and the fact that it was the Son Who became Incarnate, not the Father. Your problem arises in your not understanding Trinitarian doctrine (and thus Justin Martyr) because you compare unbegotten with “only-begotten” and see that one must refer only to God and the other to a creature of God, though His highest creature. Orthodox Christianity recognizes that the Father is unbegotten and the Son is the only-begotten and that His being begotten is an infinite and eternal begetting. This is explained well by Bl. Columba Marmion:

Further (and as I already said to you), in the Apostles’ Creed, the Father is named Creator as the First Person of the Holy Trinity: “we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord. . .”

It was fitting, then, as Justin implicitly says, that the Son, through whom all things were made become Incarnate to accomplish our redemption, precisely because all things are made through Him. This fittingness continues for Justin because he see that it was the Son Who prepared His own way in revealing Himself as “I AM” to Moses and His preparation of His People through His encounters with Abraham.

These words of St. Justin to Trypho could aptly be said to you, Dan:

Thank you Frances!

 

[Tomster]

Hey, Id did not excommunicate you!

Dan,

I would like to see you try.

 

[Dan_Parker]

(Edited)

The board offers an interface expressly for the purpose of excommunication. I can see their posts but they are collapsed

 

[Dan_Parker]

Thank you Frances!

What, no thanks for my rebuttal?

 

[Tomster]

What, no thanks for my rebuttal?

Dan,

I will thank you when you at least attempt to refute the information I provided for you on the links on the other thread.

 

[twb1621]

The board offers an interface expressly for the purpose of excommunication. I can see their posts but they are collapsed

That stops you from seeing my rebuttals to you, but it doesn’t stop my rebuttals from being seen by everyone else interested in scriptural truth…

Luke CH21; 8
qui dixit videte ne seducamini multi enim venient in nomine meo dicentes quia ego sum et tempus adpropinquavit nolite ergo ire post illos

Jesus said: Take heed you be not seduced: for many will come in my name, saying: I am he and the time is at hand. Go ye not therefore after them.

 

[FCEGM]

It seems quite strange that you say Justin who was closer in time to the apostles and who received the Faith from the apostles would not be able to identify the Creator as both the Father and Son without the language of those who came much later. I found the Justin quotes and posted them again at the following link.

First, as has already been said to you several times, the Church in the Apostles’ Creed speaks of the Father as Creator as being the First Person of the Holy Trinity, so we are in good company with St. Justin. Second, since the full articulation of the Trinitarian Faith didn’t come until after his time, neither he nor any of the ante-Nicene Fathers can be expected to have crossed ever “t” and dotted every “i” in presenting the Faith they received from the Apostles and those bishops appointed by them; you, however, fully expect such anachronisms from them (you’re not unlike the Mormons as they read the Book of Mormon). Third, St. Justin knows that all that was created was created through the Son, (Whom he identifies, btw, as “God and Lord of Hosts” to Trypho and applying Psalm 24 to Christ) just as he learned through the the Church of his age and just as the Church continues to teach:

“But these words Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God’s ordering all things through Him,” Second Apology, ch. 2.

 

[Dan_Parker]

First, as has already been said to you several times, the Church in the Apostles’ Creed speaks of the Father as Creator as being the First Person of the Holy Trinity, so we are in good company with St. Justin. Second, since the full articulation of the Trinitarian Faith didn’t come until after his time, neither he nor any of the ante-Nicene Fathers can be expected to have crossed ever “t” and dotted every “i” in presenting the Faith they received from the Apostles and those bishops appointed by them; you, however, fully expect such anachronisms from them (you’re not unlike the Mormons as they read the Book of Mormon). Third, St. Justin knows that all that was created was created through the Son, (Whom he identifies, btw, as “God and Lord of Hosts” to Trypho and applying Psalm 24 to Christ) just as he learned through the the Church of his age and just as the Church continues to teach:

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Father made all things through (Greek DIA) the Son because that is what bible writers teach in context. Justin had those Scriptures as well. However Jehovah’s Witnesses do not teach that the Son is the Creator because no bible writer teaches this.

There is a big difference between Justin understanding that the Father made all things through the Son and him explicitly saying that the Son is not the Creator but that God is the Creator.

In this Justin is expressing exactly what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach but not what Catholics teach.

I believe you misuse the word anachronism. Wiki gives this definition:
An anachronism—from the Greek ανά (ana: against, anti-) and χρόνος (chronos: time)—is an error in chronology, especially a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other.

When I say that Justin teaches that the Son is not the Creator, I place his belief in the 2nd century and earlier where that understanding was considered Orthodox. I do not take the Catholic understanding of today and change Justin’s words to the effect that what he really meant was that of course, the Son is the Creator!

The same wiki says of prochronism:
A prochronism, on the other hand, occurs when an item appears in a temporal context in which it could not yet be present (the object had not yet been developed, the verbal expression had not been coined, the philosophy had not been formulated, the breed of animal had not been developed, the technology had not been created).

You are importing an understanding from centuries later and reading that back into Justin.

Also, you say that Justin would say that the Father created through the Son. Would you mind showing me where he uses the word create in this context? Scripture says God made all things through (DIA) the Son. (Hebrews 1:1-3; John 1:1-3)

Finally, you say that Justin identifies the Son as God and Lord of Hosts. You may be correct, but you have not quoted him in context. Could it be that Justin’s words could just have easily been construed to the effect that he spoke the words of and represented the God and Lord of Hosts because he was ministering to his will?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

I will thank you when you at least attempt to refute the information I provided for you on the links on the other thread.

I am more than willing to discuss a particular topic with you in person. That means equal participation for both of us.

 

[LionHeart777]

I found the old posts. You did not have much to say about it then, saying the quotes gave you a lot to think about, if I recall. Perhaps you have had time, since you want to discuss it now. Here are the quotes.

Dan:
Note that Justin says

Chapter 60. Opinions of the Jews with regard to Him who appeared in the bush
newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

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.
Dan:
Justin may call the Son God here, but not in the same sense as his Father who alone is the Creator.

Now lets look at the next quote where Justin denies that the Father could

There is more to the difference between God and the Son in Justin besides the Father alone being the creator. He calls the Father the unbegotten God who is so great he cannot come to any place. He says the Son is an angel, not because it is Theophany but because he ministers to the will of the Father.

Chapter 127. These passages of Scripture do not apply to the Father, but to the Word
newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm

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.’

Dan, I do not believe that either of these is the passage that Ut was reffering to…which sparked the topic of St. Justin again. If it’s not, I think that it would be fair to discuss that one and then come back to what you have said.

here is the text from the post from Ut (#188) (my color and quote function additions):

Interesting. I’d also like to have that quote.

I found this comment from Justin.

Quote:
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. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign,(8) having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, hat by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, “I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers,”

Now here Justine is applying the great words, “I am that I am” to Christ, come in the form of an Angel to Moses. The fathers, rightly saw this as an indication of the oneness of God, and Justine applies these words to the Word.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan, I do not believe that either of these is the passage that Ut was reffering to…which sparked the topic of St. Justin again. If it’s not, I think that it would be fair to discuss that one and then come back to what you have said.

here is the text from the post from Ut (#188) (my color and quote function additions):

I am replying to your request to supply my earlier posts.

You said there:

I would have to search for them.

But:

a) it’s your should position should remember it. I think that was how you left it which…is weak IMO.

b) why not speak on it now? how do you deal w/ Justin equating Jesus w/ the God of the patriarchs in that passage?

So there they are. I have no idea where UT got his quote from and it certainly does not harm my points to the effect that 1) Justin does not call Christ Creator and 2) Justin says the Father is so great he cannot fit into the place of the earth (or words to that effect).

As for the angel in the bush, yes, I believe it was the Son who spoke those words as well. I am not convinced that Justin identified the Son as the God of Abraham when he said the Son spoke those words. I would need the entire quote in context and also perhaps look at the Greek. It UT can provide both English and Greek that would be helpful.

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan,

It is actually St. Justin’s, The First Apology, chapter 63 that Ut cited, and I believe I did back then…the following citation is from the same ch Ut cited and I believe refers to the point I was arguing;

Note I have cut this to be under 300 words (fair use I believe)–you (or anyone) can see how I edited by clicking on the link I provide and going to Ch: 63. I have included where Ut’s citation starts (in red) and put my comments to help guide the reader in green:

“’…**And the Angel of God **[who is the Word here I believe according to St. Justin–see my link:thumbsup:] spoke to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of your fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.’ Exodus 3:6 And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He 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…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…” (Emphasis mine) (newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)

Notice that according to Justin here, it is Jesus Christ who says “’…I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of your fathers…’” (Ibid.)