John 1:1

[utunumsint]

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

You said there:

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.

Chapter 63. How God appeared to Moses
And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spoke to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said The ox knows his owner, and the *** his master’s crib; but Israel does not know Me, and My people do not understand. Isaiah 1:3 And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, No one knows the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son reveals Him. Matthew 11:27 Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, He that hears Me, hears Him that sent Me. Luke 10:16 From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, And the Angel of God 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. 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. 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, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that 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, Exodus 3:6 this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote.

 

[twb1621]

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, I would be interested in knowing other than your JW literature, the source of your translations and the source of your Greek and Hebrew Texts. While you are providing interpretations of a specific Greek or Hebrew word, you should also provide ALL the uses for that word and not just pick one that fits your desires. That s if you are willing to show how vulnerable your interpretations are in critiquing the Catholic Faith. Please do not refer only to what the JW claims, in fact, refer to a non-biased source for translating if you are so certain of your skills.

 

[LionHeart777]

edit

 

[Dan_Parker]

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.)

Yes, I also say it was Jesus who said it. That is not the same thing as identifying Jesus as the God of Abraham. What else do you have?

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes, I also say it was Jesus who said it. That is not the same thing as identifying Jesus as the God of Abraham. What else do you have?

I believe that St. Justin is identifying Christ as the God of the Patriarchs–like I believe I said before way back when.

your position, if I remember, was that Jesus was merely reading a script prepared by the Father. I believe that if that is your position, you are reading that into the text because it’s not there.

There are examples, such as the one Ut cited, where St. Justin calls Jesus God directly. However, when those are presented to you, I think you will just resort back to your (I believe erroneous) interpretation of the Greek–just like you do for John 1:1.

Maybe I will try and dig up an ante-Nicene Father or two who believed that the Son is eternal. I’ll be away from the PC this weekend though.

Nick

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, I also say it was Jesus who said it. That is not the same thing as identifying Jesus as the God of Abraham. What else do you have?

There are two passages that I’d like to show you from John. This is the first one.

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.

Now, do you think that Jesus was simply acting as the mouthpeice of the Father in this situation? The Jews certainly didn’t think so. And I am convinced that Justin didn’t either.

Now in case there is any confusion about this, I wanted to quote another chapter from John showing the power of these words “I AM” when coming from the mouth of Christ.

John 18:4 Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him, went out and said to them, “Whom are you looking for?” 5 They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.” 4 He said to them, “I AM.” Judas his betrayer was also with them. 6 When he said to them, “I AM,” they turned away and fell to the ground. 7 So he again asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” They said, “Jesus the Nazorean.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I AM. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.”

At the very words of Christ, who declares himself “I AM”, the guards fall to their knees trembling with fear. Here Christ is again calling himself “Yahweh”, or “Jehova”. This scene causes me to tremble with awe because Jesus is declaring his essense here, shared with the Father. Because there can be only one ground of being. This is the revelation of the nature of God, the true source of life. A Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Justin knew this, and this is why he calls Christ, God.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

If you still have any doubts, let me settle the issue by quoting from Justin’s disciple, who also discussed the same passage in Book 4 chapter 13 of his work against the Heretics.

Book 4, 13 He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.”(3) But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”(4)), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

Here Ireneaus is explicily making the link between John 8:54 and Exodus 3:14

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.

All glory be to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

I believe that St. Justin is identifying Christ as the God of the Patriarchs–like I believe I said before way back when.

your position, if I remember, was that Jesus was merely reading a script prepared by the Father. I believe that if that is your position, you are reading that into the text because it’s not there.

There are examples, such as the one Ut cited, where St. Justin calls Jesus God directly. However, when those are presented to you, I think you will just resort back to your (I believe erroneous) interpretation of the Greek–just like you do for John 1:1.

Maybe I will try and dig up an ante-Nicene Father or two who believed that the Son is eternal. I’ll be away from the PC this weekend though.

Nick

As I already mentioned, yes, Justin identifies the Son as the one who spoke those words. There is nothing explicit in his words that prove that he was identifying the Son as the God of Abraham. On the other hand, I agree that Justin’s words would be the same if he was claiming to be the God of Abraham. That is to be expected from an Angelic messenger. This is your argument, not mine. You bear the burden of proof. You have not shown how the dialogue should be be interpreted your way, let alone must be interpreted your way. Factors against your view are the fact that in the same context Justin says that the Son is not the Creator. Would Justin say that the God of Abraham was not the Creator? That is absurd.

Next you continue to point out that Justin calls the Word God. How does he do this and what does he mean by this? You don’t say.

Let me ask you this. From the English translation presented here, would you expect that Justin calls the Word God in Greek in the sense that he identifies him as being the God? What if he omitted the definite article before QEOS in a syntax which allows for that article to be there. And what if he includes the article when speaking about the Father. Would that make a difference in your interpretation?

You say he calls the Son God directly. Does this mean you assume he identifies the Son as the God and with Greek that could be rendered as as a god?

Can you prove this?

 

[Dan_Parker]

There are two passages that I’d like to show you from John. This is the first one.

Now, do you think that Jesus was simply acting as the mouthpeice of the Father in this situation? The Jews certainly didn’t think so. And I am convinced that Justin didn’t either.

Now in case there is any confusion about this, I wanted to quote another chapter from John showing the power of these words “I AM” when coming from the mouth of Christ.

At the very words of Christ, who declares himself “I AM”, the guards fall to their knees trembling with fear. Here Christ is again calling himself “Yahweh”, or “Jehova”. This scene causes me to tremble with awe because Jesus is declaring his essense here, shared with the Father. Because there can be only one ground of being. This is the revelation of the nature of God, the true source of life. A Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Justin knew this, and this is why he calls Christ, God.

God bless,
Ut

The Greek version of the bible that Justin quotes, at Ex 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint bears no resemblance to the Greek of John 8:58. Where does Justin quote John 8:58?

 

[Dan_Parker]

If you still have any doubts, let me settle the issue by quoting from Justin’s disciple, who also discussed the same passage in Book 4 chapter 13 of his work against the Heretics.

Book 4, 13 He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.”(3) But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”(4)), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

Do you represent what is in parenthesis as being the words of Ireneaus? (ie (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”)]

 

[utunumsint]

Do you represent what is in parenthesis as being the words of Ireneaus? (ie (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”)]

Yes. There were no square brackets, just the parenthesis. There are several versions of this text online. Please check them if you’d like. Or I can provide them to you.

Square brackets are use for editorial insertions by translators, or commentators. Parenthesis are used to indicate comments that help explain the main clause, but are not so related to the material that you would use commas. The parenthesis would not have been in the original text. I suppose the translator decided to included them for the sake of clarity. The content would have been there, from Ireneaus’ pen.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

Yes. There were no square brackets, just the parenthesis. There are several versions of this text online. Please check them if you’d like. Or I can provide them to you.

Square brackets are use for editorial insertions by translators, or commentators. Parenthesis are used to indicate comments that help explain the main clause, but are not so related to the material that you would use commas. The parenthesis would not have been in the original text. I suppose the translator decided to included them for the sake of clarity. The content would have been there, from Ireneaus’ pen.

God bless,
Ut

Too bad the original Greek text of this was lost except for a few fragments. I would have liked to have seen that part of the passage. I was wondering why Mignes did not have the Greek at first! Since this was copied from Greek to Latin we will never know. I don’t represent the Fathers as having truth, but they are good references for tracing the historical changes. Of course, this can in no way impact our understanding of Justin’s writings, if that was your intention.

 

[utunumsint]

Too bad the original Greek text of this was lost except for a few fragments. I would have liked to have seen that part of the passage. I was wondering why Mignes did not have the Greek at first! Since this was copied from Greek to Latin we will never know. I don’t represent the Fathers as having truth, but they are good references for tracing the historical changes. Of course, this can in no way impact our understanding of Justin’s writings, if that was your intention.

Well I believe it does impact our interpretation of Justin’s comments. You say that John 8:58 has no relation to Exodus 3:14, but Ireneaus is here contradicting you. Now here, Ireneaus has two advantages over you in terms of interpretation for these passages.

1-Ireneaus was a greek speaker. He would have been able to clearly see that there was no linguistic correlation between Exodus 3:14, and John 8:58, if there was in fact no correlation between the two.
2-He was a disciple of Justin, who was also a greek speaker, who was commenting on exactly this same passage from Exodus, and applying it to the Word, whom he calls God. If Justin truly had this Arian understanding of Christ, you would think that Ireneaus would have repudiated him as treacher, or politely mentioned the difference in opinion when speaking about this passage. I mean, it is a rather fundamental issue, don’t you think?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

Well I believe it does impact our interpretation of Justin’s comments. You say that John 8:58 has no relation to Exodus 3:14, but Ireneaus is here contradicting you. Now here, Ireneaus has two advantages over you in terms of interpretation for these passages.

1-Ireneaus was a greek speaker. He would have been able to clearly see that there was no linguistic correlation between Exodus 3:14, and John 8:58, if there was in fact no correlation between the two.
2-He was a disciple of Justin, who was also a greek speaker, who was commenting on exactly this same passage from Exodus, and applying it to the Word, whom he calls God. If Justin truly had this Arian understanding of Christ, you would think that Ireneaus would have repudiated him as treacher, or politely mentioned the difference in opinion when speaking about this passage. I mean, it is a rather fundamental issue, don’t you think?

God bless,
Ut

The problem is that these writings have not been protected like Scripture. The number of copies we have are very few. Ireneaus wrote in Greek but we don’t have this in Greek. The phrase looks like it was inserted later. It is a parenthetical statement. The same thing happened at 1 John 5:7 with the Johannine comma which crept in from Latin comments on the original. It does not matter much to me either way. I don’t consider these Fathers to have had the entire truth. The earlier Fathers were closer to the truth and closer to JW theology. I find them of historical interest. But I am also wary of the way these texts have come down to modern times. In this case, all we have is the Latin.

As for Justin, I suggest you argue from Justin’s writings. Even if Ireneaus did write the words in the parenthetical statement, arguing from a later Father to an earlier one is anachronistic.

You have not yet commented on the fact that Justin says the Son is not the Creator and that the Father is so much greater than the Son that he would not have come down to our place as did the Son.

If the teachings of Justin and Irenaeus are identical, does he teach this as well?

 

[twb1621]

Too bad .

This should show the lack of credibility of interpretations from JW.

Quotes from Charles Taze Russell; “More perhaps than any other servant, ZION’S WATCH TOWER has opposed the thought that the Church of Christ is composed of a clerical class commissioned to teach, and a lay class not commissioned to teach the divine Word: it specially has held up the inspired words, “all ye are brethren” and “one is your Master”; and has pointed out that all consecrated believers are of the “royal priesthood” each fully commissioned, not to “lord it” over others, but to sacrifice himself in the service of the truth, doing good unto all, especially to the household of faith. So with the servants of Matt. 24:49; service is their only commission, not lordship or self-appointment. All the members of the “body” are “anointed to preach” the gospel, and instructed to search the Scriptures, as we have heretofore clearly shown. This has been true ever since Pentecost, and is as true as ever to-day.”
Source Worldpress

A sampling of how Charles Russell’s founding principles violated Scripture;

Scripture defining priesthood.

(Hebrews CH5)* 1 “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins:** 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. 5 So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place: Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence. 8 And whereas indeed he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. 9 And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation: 10 Called by God a high priest, according to the order of Melchisedech.” *

Support of the establishment of a teaching body and hierarchy;

1 Corinthians CH12; 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. 28 Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

Apostolic position on self-interpretation.

*2 Peter CH1; **18 We 11 ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, 21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God”. *

 

[JeanneH]

Actually there are 73 inspired books in the bible.

 

[utunumsint]

The problem is that these writings have not been protected like Scripture. The number of copies we have are very few. Ireneaus wrote in Greek but we don’t have this in Greek. The phrase looks like it was inserted later. It is a parenthetical statement.

Unlikely. Ireneaus constantly used explanitory subordinate clauses like this one. The translated mearly used parenthesis to add clarity. Knowing Greek, you must understand that this is a common way of writing in inflected languages. There is no indication that the translators or any commentators believed it was an insertion.

It does not matter much to me either way. I don’t consider these Fathers to have had the entire truth. The earlier Fathers were closer to the truth and closer to JW theology. I find them of historical interest. But I am also wary of the way these texts have come down to modern times. In this case, all we have is the Latin.

Well, you are right about one thing, which is that the Fathers were no immune from errors. This was certainly a period of time where trinitarian issues were at their infancy, and very undeveloped.

As for Justin, I suggest you argue from Justin’s writings. Even if Ireneaus did write the words in the parenthetical statement, arguing from a later Father to an earlier one is anachronistic.

Fine. But just don’t tell me that there is no relationship between Exodus 3 and John 8 since we have a Greek church father who says there is.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

Unlikely. Ireneaus constantly used explanitory subordinate clauses like this one. The translated mearly used parenthesis to add clarity. Knowing Greek, you must understand that this is a common way of writing in inflected languages. There is no indication that the translators or any commentators believed it was an insertion.

Well, you are right about one thing, which is that the Fathers were no immune from errors. This was certainly a period of time where trinitarian issues were at their infancy, and very undeveloped.

Fine. But just don’t tell me that there is no relationship between Exodus 3 and John 8 since we have a Greek church father who says there is.

God bless,
Ut

I did not make that argument, you did. I argue that the Greek of the LXX of Ex 3:14 does not resemble the Greek of John 8:58. If you had the Greek of this passage we might have a way to explore this further! But we do not.

It is one thing for you to say the Trinity was undeveloped in the ANF, and I agree. It is quite another to explain how someone like Justin could say the Son was not the Creator and make comments on the difference in Being between the Father and Son with respect their presence on earth.

On one hand you appear to claim that the doctrine was handed down from Father to Father which is what preserved the teachings, and yet when faced with teachings like Justin you call them errors. If these are errors, they are very significant ones.

There was a gradual change of teachings from the 2nd century onward that were not merely differences in technical language. They cut to the heart of who God is and who his Son is and the differences between them.

 

[utunumsint]

I did not make that argument, you did. I argue that the Greek of the LXX of Ex 3:14 does not resemble the Greek of John 8:58. If you had the Greek of this passage we might have a way to explore this further! But we do not.

OK then. But it is clear to me that Ireneaus is making this argument. This is my point. I claim it.

It is one thing for you to say the Trinity was undeveloped in the ANF, and I agree. It is quite another to explain how someone like Justin could say the Son was not the Creator and make comments on the difference in Being between the Father and Son with respect their presence on earth.

On one hand you appear to claim that the doctrine was handed down from Father to Father which is what preserved the teachings, and yet when faced with teachings like Justin you call them errors. If these are errors, they are very significant ones.

I made no such claim. I only said that Justin’s understanding of the Trinity was still at an elementary level.

There was a gradual change of teachings from the 2nd century onward that were not merely differences in technical language. They cut to the heart of who God is and who his Son is and the differences between them.

They merely clarified church teaching. There was no change in doctrine. Only clarification. Because Trinitarian issues were not officially defined yet, there were several errors that church fathers and heretics could fall into. One was ditheism, another is Sabellianism, and a third is Arianism. The fact that we find such tendencies enforces for me the need for an interpretive authority. These issues difficult to define from scripture alone.

I understand that you believe Trinitarian doctrine is unscriptural, but there are a whole bunch of very intelligent Catholic and Protestants who disagree with you.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Dan_Parker]

OK then. But it is clear to me that Ireneaus is making this argument. This is my point. I claim it.

I made no such claim. I only said that Justin’s understanding of the Trinity was still at an elementary level.

They merely clarified church teaching. There was no change in doctrine. Only clarification. Because Trinitarian issues were not officially defined yet, there were several errors that church fathers and heretics could fall into. One was ditheism, another is Sabellianism, and a third is Arianism. The fact that we find such tendencies enforces for me the need for an interpretive authority. These issues difficult to define from scripture alone.

I understand that you believe Trinitarian doctrine is unscriptural, but there are a whole bunch of very intelligent Catholic and Protestants who disagree with you.

God bless,
Ut

Explain how someone like Justin could say the Son was not the Creator and make comments on the difference in Being between the Father and Son with respect their presence on earth.